"snapdragon31" wrote in message
...
On Feb 1, 10:04 pm, Peri of Pera wrote:
Time Dilation achieves isotropic Speed

When Lorentz invented time dilation as part of his contraction
hypothesis he did so to allow the speed of light to remain constant.
He thought that if the length of a moving object contracted, its
time had to slow down or the speed of light would not be constant.
However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.

Example:
An object of 100m length traveling with a speed of 200000km/sec would
according to the Lorentz transformation

gamma = 1/sqrt(1-200000km/sec^2/300000km/sec^2) = 1.3416408

shrink to 74.535599m (100/gamma). At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec. Time dilation will expand
this fraction of time to 0.00000044721360 seconds
(0.000000333333secs*1.3416408) for an object with the speed of
200000km/sec.

In the dilated time of 0.00000044721360 seconds, light at 300000000m/
sec will transit a distance of 134.16408m (300000000m/
sec*0.000000044721360sec) but if light had slowed down to 223607021m/
sec, light would exactly cover the original 100m in the dilated time
of 0.000000044721360sec (223607021m/sec*0.00000044721360sec=100m).
Clearly, if the speed of light had not been reduced, the law of
physics d=v*t would have been violated.

Peter Riedt

This relates to the concept of the length contraction. Length
contraction does not imply that the object in motion is shorter.
Actually, it is be longer.

No it is not .. why do you insist on this nonsense?

In your example, L = 100m, c = 300000000m/s and t = 0.000000333333sec
for v = 200000000m/s, L' = 74.535599m

What it means is that length of 100m in the stationary system is
equivalent to 74.5m in the moving system.

Sort of.

Length of the rod still 100m in the moving system. Its equivalent
length in the stationary system is 100* (100/74.5) = 134.164m.

No .. it is 75.4 .. where did you pull than figure from?

The equivalent length of the rod is longer in the moving system!!!

No .. it is not

Explanation:

This should be good for a laugh

The same distance between 2 points measured in the moving
system is shorter because the measuring metre stick is longer.

The contracted length we see comes from the measurement of the length of the
moving object from within the stationary system using a stationary mater
stick . That stick is the same length as when it measures a non-moving
obejct .. it doesn't grow because you are measuring something that is moving
!!!

Object
elongates at the same rate as the metre stick so the measured length
is unchanged.

So .. now you have changed to talk about a moving metre stick measureing a
moving object. In the moving frame there is no change to either the stick
of the object. If the stationary frame measures the moving ruler they will
get a shorter length in exactly the same way that the object has a short
length.

So as to compare to the stationary system, the moving
object is longer.

No .. it is shorter. GEes you are both stubborn and incredibly stupid ..
contraction means 'shorter'. It doesn't mean longer.

Due to time dilation, the equivalent time in the stationary system is
= 0.00000044721360sec which is also longer

You are making the same mistakes as the OP regarding what time dilation
means.

d = 134.164 m (equivalent length of 100m of the moving system)

The 100m rod is 100m long in the moving system. A 134.164 rod in the moving
system would appear to be 100m in the stationary system. You are completely
confused about Sr and LT here.

v = 300000000 m/s
t = 0.00000044721360 sec (equivalent time of 0.000000333333s of the
moving system)
v * t = 3 * 10^8 * 44.72136 * 10^(-8) = 134.16 = d
Please note that both of d and t are longer in the moving system.

No .. they clearly are not .. not to anyone who has a correct understanding
of the physics involved.

You *know* that you do not (yet) understand SR .. why are you inflicting
your misunderstanding onto someone else?