In the website www.norlabs.org, following analysis of the theory of relativity is presented of the equations, x=ct and x'=c't'.
I downloaded einstein's book but it is not easy for me to understand the theory but apparently, einstein has used these equations. Is this what Einstein suggests in the
theory of relativity? Unfortunately, my emails to author of the website are being returned, therefore, I have not taken permission to quote it but apparently, these are basically Einstein's proposals.
Value of ‘c’ is constant in both the equations and is same in both frames of reference and therefore x=ct can be equal to x’=ct’ only if x’ and t’ expand and contract in the same proportion, which once again confirms that length and time must contract proportionally.
Suppose x’=1.25x then, t’ must also be equal to 1.25t or else, x=ct ≠ x’=ct’.
Let us analyze the equations through which Einstein derives the conclusion, x=ct =x’=ct’.
x=ct = 300000*1= 300000.
Now, we move to the reference body k’ that is moving at a velocity of 0.5m/sec.
The light signal will cover the same distance (x’),
x’= (c-v)t/√1-v2/c2
At v= 0.5c, we get,
x’= 150000/0.86 = 173205
similarly, t’ = (1-v/c)t/√1-v2/c2
At v= 0.5c, we get, 0.5/0.86 =0.57,
and hence, ct’ = 173205
c=173200/0.577
and, x’=ct’.
However, we also find that x≠x’ and t≠t’; therefore, the suggestion that measuring rod must exactly be same in reference frames k and k’ is not correct.
One can see that when x = 300000, x’=173205 and when t=1, t’ =0.57, which means length and time contract proportionally.
If we assume that an entity like light covers same distance in one second in all conditions without being affected by the speed of the medium it is propagating in then according to above analysis, the speed of light must remain constant in all conditions and in all mediums, not just in vacuum.
In this case, light has less time to travel as t’=0.57t but for us, t=1 second and even t’=1second. This means light must cover less distance even if clock shows 1 second in both the cases. We have to measure the distance between two ends of the light beam through our measuring rod that also has contracted proportionally, therefore, measured speed of energy in all frames of reference, not just in vacuum must be same!
Let us confirm our observations through a thought experiment.
We connect two mirrors to two ends of a meter rod so that if rod contracts then the distance between the mirror reduces and if rod expands then the distance between the two mirrors increases.
We now shoot a laser beam that bounces between the two mirrors and every time it hits one of the two mirrors, the clock ticks once. Let us assume that the interval between the two ticks is one second as per our clock.
If rod contracts then distance between the two mirrors reduces making the clock run faster as the time interval between the two ticks reduces.
This experiment shows that when the length of the rod contracts, the interval between two ticks of the clock reduces and therefore, the clock run faster.
In his examination of the effect of motion on the behavior of measuring rod and clock, Einstein suggests that length contracts and time runs slower at velocity v but his analysis of Lorentz transformation shows that time runs faster when length contracts. We have to select one of the two contradictory proposals of theory of relativity but even in appendix – I of the theory of relativity the same result is obtained as in the analysis of the Lorentz transformations and in our thought experiment.
Of course the equation x = ct only makes sense if x is the distance traveled and the t is the elapsed time for a signal moving from A to B at speed c. A and B are interpreted as events -- not just places, but times and places so that your coordinate system does not have to be tied to a "place" but an inertial reference frame.
Then we have (1-Dimensional Lorentz Transformations) x' = (x - vt)/√(1 - v²/c²) and t' = (t - vx/c²)/√(1 - v²/c²),
where v is the speed between the inertial frames of reference.
Which gives c' = x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t - vx/c²) = (ct - vt)/(t - vt/c) = c(t - vt/c)/(t - vt/c) = c
Now if you started with x = ut, where u is some speed which might or might not be c, then u' = x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t - vx/c²) = (ut - vt)/(t - vut/c²) = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²)
Which is one way to write the famous Einstein velocity addition formula for velocities u and -v.
---
But if you now, instead of using events A and B, use eternal places A and B, then you start off talking about an inertial frame where A and B both have no motion. In such an inertial reference frame, A and B have a well-defined distance between them, L. But for a moving reference frame -- a frame moving at speed v to the original, both A and B appear to be moving backwards at speed -v. Einstein, who in his autobiographical sections talks about the landscape passing by his window in a train, thought about this.
So L is the distance between two places A and B at any time, but at time t=0. So the events we measure are
A₀ = (0,0) and B₀ = (L,0). In the moving coordinate system, however, these two events don't happen at the same time! If we have A₀' = (0,0) then we have B₀' = (L/√(1 - v²/c²), -vL/c²/√(1 - v²/c²)). Since B is moving at speed -v to the observer, the simultaneous distance is measured between A₀' and B₁' = B₀' + (-v,1)× vL/c²/√(1 - v²/c²) = (L (1-v²/c²)/√(1 - v²/c²), 0) = (L√(1 - v²/c²), 0)
So the distance between places looks shorter for the moving observer, because both the relative distance and time between events is given by the Lorentz transformation -- even though the factor of 1/√(1 - v²/c²) might make you think both time and distance get longer.
The math stays consistent when you stay within the confines of the physical theory -- and that means to think four-dimensionally.
Then we have (1-Dimensional Lorentz Transformations) x' = (x - vt)/√(1 - v²/c²) and t' = (t - vx/c²)/√(1 - v²/c²),
where v is the speed between the inertial frames of reference.
Which gives c' = x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t - vx/c²) = (ct - vt)/(t - vt/c) = c(t - vt/c)/(t - vt/c) = c
Now if you started with x = ut, where u is some speed which might or might not be c, then u' = x'/t' = (x - vt)/(t - vx/c²) = (ut - vt)/(t - vut/c²) = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c²)
Which is one way to write the famous Einstein velocity addition formula for velocities u and -v.
---
But if you now, instead of using events A and B, use eternal places A and B, then you start off talking about an inertial frame where A and B both have no motion. In such an inertial reference frame, A and B have a well-defined distance between them, L. But for a moving reference frame -- a frame moving at speed v to the original, both A and B appear to be moving backwards at speed -v. Einstein, who in his autobiographical sections talks about the landscape passing by his window in a train, thought about this.
So L is the distance between two places A and B at any time, but at time t=0. So the events we measure are
A₀ = (0,0) and B₀ = (L,0). In the moving coordinate system, however, these two events don't happen at the same time! If we have A₀' = (0,0) then we have B₀' = (L/√(1 - v²/c²), -vL/c²/√(1 - v²/c²)). Since B is moving at speed -v to the observer, the simultaneous distance is measured between A₀' and B₁' = B₀' + (-v,1)× vL/c²/√(1 - v²/c²) = (L (1-v²/c²)/√(1 - v²/c²), 0) = (L√(1 - v²/c²), 0)
So the distance between places looks shorter for the moving observer, because both the relative distance and time between events is given by the Lorentz transformation -- even though the factor of 1/√(1 - v²/c²) might make you think both time and distance get longer.
The math stays consistent when you stay within the confines of the physical theory -- and that means to think four-dimensionally.
If this analysis is correct then how do we relate this analysis of Einstein to his observation that time runs slower and length contracts for a body in motion. This analysis presented by the author of the website www.norlabs.org and its confirmation by you suggests that time runs faster when length contracts but in Lorentz transformations, Einstein suggests that time runs slower when length contracts.
How do we explain this?
How do we explain this?
You have not understood what I wrote. For measurement of the distance between places, the moving observer sees the distance shrink; likewise for a moving ruler (for whom its ends are immobile places) the stationary observer (who is moving from the viewpoint of the ruler) sees the length contract.
For a clock on a time-like world line, the clock ticks fastest for the observer who is not moving relative to the clock. Likewise, two inertial observers each with a clock always sees the other's clock as the one ticking slower.
But for events, not the distance between places and not the ticks of a particular clock but the actual location in space and time, the separation between events is given by both a distance, x, and a time, t . And the Lorentz transformation, while it may scale these numbers both by 1/√(1 - v²/c²), that is not all it does!
Minkowski showed that no matter the v, the Lorentz transformation preserves the value of I = c²t² - x² for any two events. So for two simultaneous events, I < 0. For two events which are connected by a time-like path, I > 0, and for a light-like path, I = 0. This is why lengths shrink and clock ticks dilate in special relativity, and c = c'; and it's not something that you get to quickly from the Lorentz transformations without a guide.
Time does not run faster when length contracts -- your author has forget that when his clock moves so do all the pieces, so the simultaneous length is not the number that goes into figuring out how fast the clock ticks.
For a clock on a time-like world line, the clock ticks fastest for the observer who is not moving relative to the clock. Likewise, two inertial observers each with a clock always sees the other's clock as the one ticking slower.
But for events, not the distance between places and not the ticks of a particular clock but the actual location in space and time, the separation between events is given by both a distance, x, and a time, t . And the Lorentz transformation, while it may scale these numbers both by 1/√(1 - v²/c²), that is not all it does!
Minkowski showed that no matter the v, the Lorentz transformation preserves the value of I = c²t² - x² for any two events. So for two simultaneous events, I < 0. For two events which are connected by a time-like path, I > 0, and for a light-like path, I = 0. This is why lengths shrink and clock ticks dilate in special relativity, and c = c'; and it's not something that you get to quickly from the Lorentz transformations without a guide.
Time does not run faster when length contracts -- your author has forget that when his clock moves so do all the pieces, so the simultaneous length is not the number that goes into figuring out how fast the clock ticks.
QUOTE (preekash+Oct 1 2009, 08:10 PM)
In the website www.norlabs.org, following analysis of the theory of relativity is presented of the equations, x=ct and x'=c't'.
I downloaded einstein's book but it is not easy for me to understand the theory but apparently, einstein has used these equations. Is this what Einstein suggests in the
theory of relativity? Unfortunately, my emails to author of the website are being returned, therefore, I have not taken permission to quote it but apparently, these are basically Einstein's proposals.
The website is written by a crank. You are a lot better off buying a book or taking a class. Or you can listen to what rpenner is answering.
I downloaded einstein's book but it is not easy for me to understand the theory but apparently, einstein has used these equations. Is this what Einstein suggests in the
theory of relativity? Unfortunately, my emails to author of the website are being returned, therefore, I have not taken permission to quote it but apparently, these are basically Einstein's proposals.
The website is written by a crank. You are a lot better off buying a book or taking a class. Or you can listen to what rpenner is answering.
QUOTE (preekash+Oct 1 2009, 09:34 PM)
If this analysis is correct then how do we relate this analysis of Einstein to his observation that time runs slower and length contracts for a body in motion. This analysis presented by the author of the website www.norlabs.org and its confirmation by you suggests that time runs faster when length contracts but in Lorentz transformations, Einstein suggests that time runs slower when length contracts.
How do we explain this?
Here is another explanation, the transformation between frames of reference is, according to Lorentz:
x'=g(x-vt)
t'=g(t-vx/c^2)
where g=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) . g is always grater than 1
Differentiating, you get:
dx'=g(dx-vdt)
dt'=g(dt-v/c^2*dx)
If you want to measure a length in the primed frame, you need to mark its endpoints simultaneously in that frame, so:
dt'=0
This means dt=v/c^2*dx
Plug it into dx'=g(dx-vdt) and you get dx'=g(dx-(v/c)^2)dx)=dx/g
Since g>1, dx'<dx. This is called length contraction.
Now, if you want to judge the time separation between two ticks of a clock in the unprimed frame as viewed from the primed frame, you need to make dx=0 (the clock is not moving in the unprimed frame). Plug it in dt'=g(dt-v/c^2*dx) and you get dt'=g*dt. This is called time dilation. The clock in the unprimed frame doesn't run any slower or faster, it is just that the interval between ticks appears larger when viewed from a moving frame.
How do we explain this?
Here is another explanation, the transformation between frames of reference is, according to Lorentz:
x'=g(x-vt)
t'=g(t-vx/c^2)
where g=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) . g is always grater than 1
Differentiating, you get:
dx'=g(dx-vdt)
dt'=g(dt-v/c^2*dx)
If you want to measure a length in the primed frame, you need to mark its endpoints simultaneously in that frame, so:
dt'=0
This means dt=v/c^2*dx
Plug it into dx'=g(dx-vdt) and you get dx'=g(dx-(v/c)^2)dx)=dx/g
Since g>1, dx'<dx. This is called length contraction.
Now, if you want to judge the time separation between two ticks of a clock in the unprimed frame as viewed from the primed frame, you need to make dx=0 (the clock is not moving in the unprimed frame). Plug it in dt'=g(dt-v/c^2*dx) and you get dt'=g*dt. This is called time dilation. The clock in the unprimed frame doesn't run any slower or faster, it is just that the interval between ticks appears larger when viewed from a moving frame.
Keep the website apart and let us discuss this based on your analysis. This entire idea of length contraction and time dilation basically belongs to Lorentz but Lorentz only suggested that these changes are illusonary and not real but Einstein suggested that this changes are real this is why Einstein is given credit for it.
You seem to be suggesting that these changes are not real.
Moreover, as you suggested, the equivalence of the frame of reference has to be with Minkowski's explanation rather than Einstein's who, if I am not wrong, suggested that two snapshots taken of the rod will show that rod is of the same size but his own analysis shows that x' is not equal to x and t' is not equal to t. I can see after reading Minkowski's explanation that Einstein's idea is not correct.
I think you guys are paid to defend theory of relativity so I can understand that you will disown your own analysis.
Do not bother to reply to it because unlike you people I am not a cattle. I think, I will find someone who can explain Minkowski's idea which is not what einstein suggests even though he has taken refuge under this idea.
You seem to be suggesting that these changes are not real.
Moreover, as you suggested, the equivalence of the frame of reference has to be with Minkowski's explanation rather than Einstein's who, if I am not wrong, suggested that two snapshots taken of the rod will show that rod is of the same size but his own analysis shows that x' is not equal to x and t' is not equal to t. I can see after reading Minkowski's explanation that Einstein's idea is not correct.
I think you guys are paid to defend theory of relativity so I can understand that you will disown your own analysis.
Do not bother to reply to it because unlike you people I am not a cattle. I think, I will find someone who can explain Minkowski's idea which is not what einstein suggests even though he has taken refuge under this idea.
If length contracts and time dilates then speed of light must change at different velocities.
It is quite obvious but only the human beings who have brains can understand it. If you can help me, just suggest a good book on theory of relativity. I do not think, i can rely on your analysis.
It is quite obvious but only the human beings who have brains can understand it. If you can help me, just suggest a good book on theory of relativity. I do not think, i can rely on your analysis.
QUOTE (preekash+Oct 2 2009, 10:16 AM)
Keep the website apart and let us discuss this based on your analysis. This entire idea of length contraction and time dilation basically belongs to Lorentz but Lorentz only suggested that these changes are illusonary and not real but Einstein suggested that this changes are real this is why Einstein is given credit for it.
You seem to be suggesting that these changes are not real.
Moreover, as you suggested, the equivalence of the frame of reference has to be with Minkowski's explanation rather than Einstein's who, if I am not wrong, suggested that two snapshots taken of the rod will show that rod is of the same size but his own analysis shows that x' is not equal to x and t' is not equal to t. I can see after reading Minkowski's explanation that Einstein's idea is not correct.
I think you guys are paid to defend theory of relativity so I can understand that you will disown your own analysis.
I think you are in reality the author of the idiotic website and you came here in order to peddle your book. You aren't trying to study anything, you are just trying to justify the idiotic ideas from your website
Are you sure about that?
You seem to be suggesting that these changes are not real.
Moreover, as you suggested, the equivalence of the frame of reference has to be with Minkowski's explanation rather than Einstein's who, if I am not wrong, suggested that two snapshots taken of the rod will show that rod is of the same size but his own analysis shows that x' is not equal to x and t' is not equal to t. I can see after reading Minkowski's explanation that Einstein's idea is not correct.
I think you guys are paid to defend theory of relativity so I can understand that you will disown your own analysis.
I think you are in reality the author of the idiotic website and you came here in order to peddle your book. You aren't trying to study anything, you are just trying to justify the idiotic ideas from your website
QUOTE
Do not bother to reply to it because unlike you people I am not a cattle.
Are you sure about that?
QUOTE (Trout+Oct 2 2009, 02:52 PM)
I think you are in reality the author of the idiotic website and you came here in order to peddle your book. You aren't trying to study anything, you are just trying to justify the idiotic ideas from your website
On the button, buddy-boy! - I concur.
On the button, buddy-boy! - I concur.
preekash
Here is a very simple way to visualize what velocity is really doing. "c" is always content. Place the mirrors between two ships in space. Represent the ships parallel direction as A^2, the distance between the mirrors as B^2. You fire a photon between the mirrors at A^2 and view the photon in the path of B^2. Your dilated time clock that has slowed measures B^2 the same as the tick of an atomic clock. So each cycle in B^2 path is the same as the clocks B^2 cycle. So time contraction reduces the clock by the same amount as the measurement of B^2 is to "c". The outside observer will view the light following the path of C^2 which we know is = to A^2 + B^2. So the outsider views C^2 with his clock and the ship views B^2 as a contracted time and a contracted yard stick. The contraction is not real its just a matter of perspective in SR.
trout you know there is not much difference between Love and Hate. You Love to Hate me. I am glad there is something about me that you Love!!!
Here is a very simple way to visualize what velocity is really doing. "c" is always content. Place the mirrors between two ships in space. Represent the ships parallel direction as A^2, the distance between the mirrors as B^2. You fire a photon between the mirrors at A^2 and view the photon in the path of B^2. Your dilated time clock that has slowed measures B^2 the same as the tick of an atomic clock. So each cycle in B^2 path is the same as the clocks B^2 cycle. So time contraction reduces the clock by the same amount as the measurement of B^2 is to "c". The outside observer will view the light following the path of C^2 which we know is = to A^2 + B^2. So the outsider views C^2 with his clock and the ship views B^2 as a contracted time and a contracted yard stick. The contraction is not real its just a matter of perspective in SR.
trout you know there is not much difference between Love and Hate. You Love to Hate me. I am glad there is something about me that you Love!!!
QUOTE (4Dguy+Oct 2 2009, 03:16 PM)
trout you know there is not much difference between Love and Hate. You Love to Hate me. I am glad there is something about me that you Love!!!
Yes, you are my favorite clown.
trout
I can feel the Love. Thank you.
I can feel the Love. Thank you.
sunil.thakur@norlabs.org does in fact look like a classically bad crank. Here's his claim with respect to solar eclipses:
QUOTE (THE ZERO UNIVERSE+ p. 23)
As such, when we make a drawing of the positions of these three entities to the scale then we find that umbra of the moon does not extent to the earth; in fact, it falls well short of the earth. The darkness on the earth is caused due to the presence of atmosphere as atmosphere needs a lot more energy to produce light than objects like dust particles on the surface of the earth.
This is fundamentally a claim about geometry, but due to the graphical limitations, I will work with the analogous algebra.
Let us assume the Earth, Sun and Moon are perfect spheres. Let E, S and M be their corresponding radii. Let D be the center-to-center distance between Earth and the Sun, and d be the center to center distance between the Earth and Moon.
Question 1: How far from the center of the moon, x, does the total shadow of the Sun extend, when Earth, Moon and Sun are in a straight line?
Assuming S > M, which is in fact true, then we have a simple trapezoid consisting of a side of length S, a right angle, a side of length (D-d), another right angle and a side of length M. This trapezoid can uniquely be extended to become a triangle, and the extension is a right triangle with legs of M and x, which is in total shadow.
Therefore, x/M = (x + D - d)/S or x = (D - d)M/(S-M)
Question 2: When Earth, Moon and Sun are in a straight line, in the absence of atmosphere, does the total shadow of the moon extend to the surface of the Earth?
That's easy. That's when x > d - E, or when x + E - d > 0 or when (D - d)M/(S-M) + E - d > 0
Question 3: Is that ever possible? Well, since all the orbits are ellipses, and the Earth, Moon and Sun are not perfect spheres, we have to try high values and low values for all of them. Sorting by x + E - d, we see the most significant effect is the distance between Earth and Moon, and a somewhat lesser effect is the changing distance between Earth and Sun. The departure of the Sun, Earth or Moon from perfect spheres is a small factor.
(All numbers from Wikipedia, to as many decimal places as I could find. All figures are in meters)
So Sunil Thakur says damn silly stuff, and mistates simple facts. This is either truly pathetic laziness or lying, and since he is self-promoting, I cannot view him kindly.
This is fundamentally a claim about geometry, but due to the graphical limitations, I will work with the analogous algebra.
Let us assume the Earth, Sun and Moon are perfect spheres. Let E, S and M be their corresponding radii. Let D be the center-to-center distance between Earth and the Sun, and d be the center to center distance between the Earth and Moon.
Question 1: How far from the center of the moon, x, does the total shadow of the Sun extend, when Earth, Moon and Sun are in a straight line?
Assuming S > M, which is in fact true, then we have a simple trapezoid consisting of a side of length S, a right angle, a side of length (D-d), another right angle and a side of length M. This trapezoid can uniquely be extended to become a triangle, and the extension is a right triangle with legs of M and x, which is in total shadow.
Therefore, x/M = (x + D - d)/S or x = (D - d)M/(S-M)
Question 2: When Earth, Moon and Sun are in a straight line, in the absence of atmosphere, does the total shadow of the moon extend to the surface of the Earth?
That's easy. That's when x > d - E, or when x + E - d > 0 or when (D - d)M/(S-M) + E - d > 0
Question 3: Is that ever possible? Well, since all the orbits are ellipses, and the Earth, Moon and Sun are not perfect spheres, we have to try high values and low values for all of them. Sorting by x + E - d, we see the most significant effect is the distance between Earth and Moon, and a somewhat lesser effect is the changing distance between Earth and Sun. The departure of the Sun, Earth or Moon from perfect spheres is a small factor.
CODE
D d E M S x x + E – d
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.12E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 -3.23E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.18E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.18E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.97E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.98E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.93E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.93E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 1.03E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 1.04E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 1.09E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 1.09E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.29E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.30E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.34E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.34E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.12E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 -3.23E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.18E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.18E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.97E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.98E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.93E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.93E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 1.03E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 1.04E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 1.09E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 1.09E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.29E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.30E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.34E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.34E+007
So Sunil Thakur says damn silly stuff, and mistates simple facts. This is either truly pathetic laziness or lying, and since he is self-promoting, I cannot view him kindly.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 2 2009, 04:50 PM)
sunil.thakur@norlabs.org does in fact look like a classically bad crank. Here's his claim with respect to solar eclipses:
This is fundamentally a claim about geometry, but due to the graphical limitations, I will work with the analogous algebra.
Let us assume the Earth, Sun and Moon are perfect spheres. Let E, S and M be their corresponding radii. Let D be the center-to-center distance between Earth and the Sun, and d be the center to center distance between the Earth and Moon.
Question 1: How far from the center of the moon, x, does the total shadow of the Sun extend, when Earth, Moon and Sun are in a straight line?
Assuming S > M, which is in fact true, then we have a simple trapezoid consisting of a side of length S, a right angle, a side of length (D-d), another right angle and a side of length M. This trapezoid can uniquely be extended to become a triangle, and the extension is a right triangle with legs of M and x, which is in total shadow.
Therefore, x/M = (x + D - d)/S or x = (D - d)M/(S-M)
Question 2: When Earth, Moon and Sun are in a straight line, in the absence of atmosphere, does the total shadow of the moon extend to the surface of the Earth?
That's easy. That's when x > d - E, or when x + E - d > 0 or when (D - d)M/(S-M) + E - d > 0
Question 3: Is that ever possible? Well, since all the orbits are ellipses, and the Earth, Moon and Sun are not perfect spheres, we have to try high values and low values for all of them. Sorting by x + E - d, we see the most significant effect is the distance between Earth and Moon, and a somewhat lesser effect is the changing distance between Earth and Sun. The departure of the Sun, Earth or Moon from perfect spheres is a small factor.
(All numbers from Wikipedia, to as many decimal places as I could find. All figures are in meters)This is fundamentally a claim about geometry, but due to the graphical limitations, I will work with the analogous algebra.
Let us assume the Earth, Sun and Moon are perfect spheres. Let E, S and M be their corresponding radii. Let D be the center-to-center distance between Earth and the Sun, and d be the center to center distance between the Earth and Moon.
Question 1: How far from the center of the moon, x, does the total shadow of the Sun extend, when Earth, Moon and Sun are in a straight line?
Assuming S > M, which is in fact true, then we have a simple trapezoid consisting of a side of length S, a right angle, a side of length (D-d), another right angle and a side of length M. This trapezoid can uniquely be extended to become a triangle, and the extension is a right triangle with legs of M and x, which is in total shadow.
Therefore, x/M = (x + D - d)/S or x = (D - d)M/(S-M)
Question 2: When Earth, Moon and Sun are in a straight line, in the absence of atmosphere, does the total shadow of the moon extend to the surface of the Earth?
That's easy. That's when x > d - E, or when x + E - d > 0 or when (D - d)M/(S-M) + E - d > 0
Question 3: Is that ever possible? Well, since all the orbits are ellipses, and the Earth, Moon and Sun are not perfect spheres, we have to try high values and low values for all of them. Sorting by x + E - d, we see the most significant effect is the distance between Earth and Moon, and a somewhat lesser effect is the changing distance between Earth and Sun. The departure of the Sun, Earth or Moon from perfect spheres is a small factor.
CODE
D d E M S x x + E – d
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.12E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 -3.23E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.18E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.18E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.97E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.98E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.93E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.93E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 1.03E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 1.04E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 1.09E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 1.09E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.29E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.30E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.34E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.34E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.12E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 -3.23E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.18E+007
1.47E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 -3.18E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.97E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.98E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.93E+007
1.52E+011 4.06E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 -1.93E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 1.03E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.67E+008 1.04E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 1.09E+007
1.47E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.68E+008 1.09E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.29E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.30E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.38E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.34E+007
1.52E+011 3.63E+008 6.37E+006 1.74E+006 6.96E+008 3.80E+008 2.34E+007
So Sunil Thakur says damn silly stuff, and mistates simple facts. This is either truly pathetic laziness or lying, and since he is self-promoting, I cannot view him kindly.
"preekash" and "sunil" are one and the same person.
"Both" of "them" think that shadow has a physical extent that cannot "reach" the Earth
I had mentioned that my knowledge of theory of relativity is not good enough to argue and I had also mentioned that I cannot get across to the author to obtain permission to quote from the website.
I had asked for a good book that can help me understand this length contraction and time dilation book.
It is not that I am believe in everything that wesbite says, I just want to verify.
My question was and is, 'wheher that analysis is correct'. You suggest,
"The contraction is not real its just a matter of perspective in SR."
This is exactly what I wanted a clarification on. If it is not real then why do we have to find the solution of twin paradox through such complex route? As you suggest, theory of relativity just explains something that is not real.
Not Main Stream; are u sure there is no real value of theory of relativity as it just explains perceptions.
Anyway...instead of forums, let me find out some website where physicists answer the questions. i remember Cornell university has one such website. I hope to find someone who really understands before teaching it to others.
I had asked for a good book that can help me understand this length contraction and time dilation book.
It is not that I am believe in everything that wesbite says, I just want to verify.
My question was and is, 'wheher that analysis is correct'. You suggest,
"The contraction is not real its just a matter of perspective in SR."
This is exactly what I wanted a clarification on. If it is not real then why do we have to find the solution of twin paradox through such complex route? As you suggest, theory of relativity just explains something that is not real.
Not Main Stream; are u sure there is no real value of theory of relativity as it just explains perceptions.
Anyway...instead of forums, let me find out some website where physicists answer the questions. i remember Cornell university has one such website. I hope to find someone who really understands before teaching it to others.
That's 4DGuy who says it is just a matter of perspective. That large negative score he has is a reflection of the fact that he frequently voices opinions on subjects where he has no idea of what the actual truth is.
QUOTE (preekash+Oct 3 2009, 02:00 PM)
I had mentioned that my knowledge of theory of relativity is not good enough to argue and I had also mentioned that I cannot get across to the author to obtain permission to quote from the website.
Good, because the "author" is a crank.
I had asked for a good book that can help me understand this length contraction and time dilation book.
An introduction to the special theory of relativity - Robert Katz
Good, because the "author" is a crank.
QUOTE
I had asked for a good book that can help me understand this length contraction and time dilation book.
An introduction to the special theory of relativity - Robert Katz
Thanks for suggesting the book.
From the experts here, I will just like to know whether, as per theory of relativity,
Take the case of twin paradox,
1. Time dilation and length contraction are real when viewed from both frames of reference (from twin in the spaceship and from the twin on earth),
or
2. it is real in one frame of reference and not real from another frame of reference,
(from twin in spaceship but not from twin on earth or from twin on earth but not from twin in spaceship)
or
3. is not real real from any frame of reference. (neither from the twin on earth nor from twin in spaceship)
Forget about the webiste, author, or any other book in the world. In the opinion of this group which of the these three conditions represent theory of relativity?
This is my simple question. You need not even give a detail reply, just say which of these 3 conditions represent theory of relativity's (not yours) perspective.
From the experts here, I will just like to know whether, as per theory of relativity,
Take the case of twin paradox,
1. Time dilation and length contraction are real when viewed from both frames of reference (from twin in the spaceship and from the twin on earth),
or
2. it is real in one frame of reference and not real from another frame of reference,
(from twin in spaceship but not from twin on earth or from twin on earth but not from twin in spaceship)
or
3. is not real real from any frame of reference. (neither from the twin on earth nor from twin in spaceship)
Forget about the webiste, author, or any other book in the world. In the opinion of this group which of the these three conditions represent theory of relativity?
This is my simple question. You need not even give a detail reply, just say which of these 3 conditions represent theory of relativity's (not yours) perspective.
QUOTE (preekash+Oct 4 2009, 01:20 PM)
Thanks for suggesting the book.
From the experts here, I will just like to know whether, as per theory of relativity,
Take the case of twin paradox,
1. Time dilation and length contraction are real when viewed from both frames of reference (from twin in the spaceship and from the twin on earth),
or
2. it is real in one frame of reference and not real from another frame of reference,
(from twin in spaceship but not from twin on earth or from twin on earth but not from twin in spaceship)
or
3. is not real real from any frame of reference. (neither from the twin on earth nor from twin in spaceship)
Forget about the webiste, author, or any other book in the world. In the opinion of this group which of the these three conditions represent theory of relativity?
This is my simple question. You need not even give a detail reply, just say which of these 3 conditions represent theory of relativity's (not yours) perspective.
Neither. Read a book or take a class. You are too stupid.
From the experts here, I will just like to know whether, as per theory of relativity,
Take the case of twin paradox,
1. Time dilation and length contraction are real when viewed from both frames of reference (from twin in the spaceship and from the twin on earth),
or
2. it is real in one frame of reference and not real from another frame of reference,
(from twin in spaceship but not from twin on earth or from twin on earth but not from twin in spaceship)
or
3. is not real real from any frame of reference. (neither from the twin on earth nor from twin in spaceship)
Forget about the webiste, author, or any other book in the world. In the opinion of this group which of the these three conditions represent theory of relativity?
This is my simple question. You need not even give a detail reply, just say which of these 3 conditions represent theory of relativity's (not yours) perspective.
Neither. Read a book or take a class. You are too stupid.
What time dilation, length contraction and the twin paradox show us that there are more fundamental things in the universe than length and time. Things like the invariant interval.
But as so far as a length can be said to be real, so is length contraction. It's so real that UPS uses it to ship packages from place to place when they find addresses via GPS.
But as so far as a length can be said to be real, so is length contraction. It's so real that UPS uses it to ship packages from place to place when they find addresses via GPS.
I am here to learn something and I do not mind if you use this kind of language beause it reflects your personality not mine.
The second reply of weird tells something about length contraction. But weird, GPRS system also shows that time dilation is real. Can u please clarify whether it is real from both frames of reference i.e. if we are in same spaceship in which we have one of our clocks for GPRS system then obviously the clocks at the ground must appear to run slower.. do they actually run slower?
The second reply of weird tells something about length contraction. But weird, GPRS system also shows that time dilation is real. Can u please clarify whether it is real from both frames of reference i.e. if we are in same spaceship in which we have one of our clocks for GPRS system then obviously the clocks at the ground must appear to run slower.. do they actually run slower?
Of course it is real in all frames of reference, because this Earth upon which you sit, stand or lie down is not "at rest." This should be obvious from the fact that not all of its parts are in the same state of motion, regardless of what physical theory you are biased in favor of.
Relativity fixes the assumption of Newton's theory that one must work in an absolute reference frame, and explains why Newton succeeded even though there is no evidence for any preferred absolute standard of rest (because 1/c is small compared with the scale of Newton's experimental basis). What we do have to learn about the universe are bodies in relative motion, with the motion of no body preferred to any other, and that is all we need to do physics.
Relativity fixes the assumption of Newton's theory that one must work in an absolute reference frame, and explains why Newton succeeded even though there is no evidence for any preferred absolute standard of rest (because 1/c is small compared with the scale of Newton's experimental basis). What we do have to learn about the universe are bodies in relative motion, with the motion of no body preferred to any other, and that is all we need to do physics.
Thanks weird for your patience and decency. I understand that earth is not 'at rest' but I want to know whether the motion of spaceship affects the clocks on earth as it does the clocks on the spaceship?
I am asking this question because reading theory of relativity, not just any information on any website, gives the impression that Einstein maintains throughout his theory that motion of spaceship has as much effect on the clocks on the earth as it does not on the clocks on the spaceship.
Is this what you are suggesting when you say,
"What we do have to learn about the universe are bodies in relative motion, with the motion of no body preferred to any other, and that is all we need to do physics."
I am asking this question because reading theory of relativity, not just any information on any website, gives the impression that Einstein maintains throughout his theory that motion of spaceship has as much effect on the clocks on the earth as it does not on the clocks on the spaceship.
Is this what you are suggesting when you say,
"What we do have to learn about the universe are bodies in relative motion, with the motion of no body preferred to any other, and that is all we need to do physics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox
I'm not sure if that will help you or confuse you more.
I hope it will help.
I'm not sure if that will help you or confuse you more.
I hope it will help.
Thanks for suggesting link to wiki. It appears that weird is right in suggesting that time dilation and length contraction are real from both frames of reference. Only thing in case of twin paradox is that because there is no symmetry in the motions of two twins therefore there is no paradox.
I am thankful to the entire group including the guy who not only gave a wrong answer but misbehaved with a person probably much younger to him. Some people never grow mentally.
I am happy that I visited this forum for guidance.
I am thankful to the entire group including the guy who not only gave a wrong answer but misbehaved with a person probably much younger to him. Some people never grow mentally.
I am happy that I visited this forum for guidance.
Even if you are the crank who published the crank website, you got one thing right.
Trout is a bitter and unfulfilled jerk-off who finds no greater pleasure than belittling others. I believe he wants everyone to be as miserable as he is. If all men were limited to the same equipment as his screen name is, maybe we'd be bitter too.
Did'ya sting me, Mr. fish? 
Trout is a bitter and unfulfilled jerk-off who finds no greater pleasure than belittling others. I believe he wants everyone to be as miserable as he is. If all men were limited to the same equipment as his screen name is, maybe we'd be bitter too.
Did'ya sting me, Mr. fish?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.