"Peri of Pera" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 9:36 am, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
...
On Feb 2, 1:49 pm, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Peri of Pera" wrote in
messagenews:bb01e949-a208-4aa8-a317-e490b88df__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i ...
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.
And there also has to be a change in simultaneity as well
However, Lorentz achieved the opposite effect with his thought
process.
This should be good for a laugh again...
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).
If you mean that a stationary obserer would measure as the distance
between
the endpoint of the moving rod at a given instance of time in the
stationary
system .. then yes
At rest, light will cover 100m in
100m/300000000m/sec = 0.000000333333sec.
OK
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.
If you mean that at the location of the stationary observer, an
interval
that is 0.000000333333 on the moving clock will take 0.00000044721360
on
the
observers clock .. then yes.
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.
You are clearly confused about relativity.
Let's look at this more clearly...
Let us assume our coordinates are such that at x=0,t=0 we also have
x'=0,
t'=0
Let us assume that we have a moving rod of length L travelling at
speed v
Let us assume the light is shining along the rod in the direction of
travel
Let us assume the light is emitted at t=t'=0, when the rear end of the
rod
is at x=x'=0
In the stationary frame of reference, the rod is moving while the
light
is
travelling at c
So the light gets to the other end of the rod, as seen by the
stationary
observer, at x, t where
t = L / (c - v)
x = c . t ... because x / t = c
That corresponds in the rods frame of reference to a point (x',t')
x' = gamma . ( x - v.t ) ... Lorentz
x' = gamma . ( c.t - v.t ) ... subs for x
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . t ... factorise
x' = gamma . ( c - v ) . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
x' = gamma . L ... cancel
t' = gamma . ( t - v.x / c^2 ) ... Lorentz
t' = gamma . ( t - v.t / c ) ... subs for x
t' = gamma . (1 - v/c ) . t ... factorise
t' = gamma . (c - v) / c . L / (c - v) ... subs for t
t' = gamma . L / c ... cancel
so the speed of light as seen in the moving rods frame is
c' = x' / t'
c' = gamma . L / ( gamma . L / c )
c' = c
So you can see that the speed of light as measuring in the frame of
the
moving frame is c as well
Jecko,
The questions a
Ahh .. so now you are asking questions instead of making bold statements
that SR and LT is wrong .. that at least is an improvement 
If time slows down
At a given point in the stationary frame .. but that's not what is
happening
here.
and there is more time to do
things will light go a longer distance or is the speed of light
reduced? Either must occur to preserve the law of physics d=v/t.
Relativity of simultaneity .. look it up. That is why Lorentz Transforms
work .. they combine the three effects that you need to have together to
make a constant speed of light work: length contraction, time dilation,
and
relativity of simultaneity. If you ignore one of those, then the other
two
*seem* contradictory (which is what you are doing).
Jecko,
If the going gets difficult, you hide behind 'observer frames'.
I'm not hiding anywhere. I am being very open about it .. i showed you the
full working using Lorentz transforms for your scenario.
Now
you use 'relativity of simultaneity' as another nebulous concept.
Its not nebulous .. its simply something you haven't understood .. along
with the rest of SR and LT. Do not criticise from a point of ignorance.
My questions are easy to understand but perhaps too difficult to answer.
They aren't at all difficult to answer. I showed you the correct working
using Lorentz transforms that showed the speed of light was the same in both
frames of reference. Now .. you need ot work out why your understanding of
what SR and LT predict was so wrong.
Don't try again with bull****. It doesn't solve anything.
Indeed .. so stop with yours and do some learning about SR and LT. If you
then still have some genuine problems with understanding .. ask some
questions. If you then think there is really a problem with SR, then post
it, along with your working and ask if anyone can see a problem with your
analysis. That's the way to be taken seriously, and not be thought of as a
troll or an ignorant crackpot.