wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:48:35 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


wrote in message ...
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:19:22 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


wrote in message ...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:27:39 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
wrote:


wrote in message ...
This problem is a combination of several problems I've posted in this
group. When I combine the problems, the answers given to me in
previous posts don't work. Here's the problem.

Another everyday experience problem with 300000 km long
rigid rods, I presume?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../Everyday.html

Dirk, the link you posted has pandora.be in it, from which I infer
refers to a country different than the United States of America. So
I'm guessing English is not your native language. If you carefully
read my sentence that you refer to in the above link, you will see
that I stated that the 300000 km length IS NOT part of my everyday
experience.

Sure.
I *had* carefully read your sentence and I understood it just
the way you had intended it. It was one of the funniest things
you ever wrote on this group.
Well, with the velocity being only 3 meters / second, and the
acceleration being only 1 g, I can experience how objects change (on a
local level) when they move from one reference frame to another. For
example, some posters in this group believe if the rod is made long
enough, a person holding one end of the rod will be accelerated to a
velocity approaching the speed of light. But with parameters like 3
meters / second and a 1 g acceleration it is easy for me to see that
that notion is incorrect. You may think of that as being "an
immortal fumble of David Seppala" but actually it helps me understand
things easier. You're not one of those people who think one end of
the rod travels at a speed close to the speed of light when it is
placed on a conveyer belt moving at 3 meters / second, are you? Or is
that why you label my approach as an immortal fumble?

Just compare your
| "Other than the rod being light-years in length, the parameters are
| values that occur in our daily experience."
with
"Your Honour, other than that bitchy wife of mine, I would never
kill anyone, so surely you're not going to put me behind bars?"

Dirk Vdm
If you are going to add clauses in your analogy, why not something
like:
"Other than the rod being light-years in length, the parameters are
values that occur in our daily experience, so surely I can learn
something using parameters in the problem which are seen in my daily
experience."
Did you ever notice many posters twist the statements of others?
David



David
In order for you not to think that I had misunderstood you
line, I now have put emphasis on the entire sentence:
| "Other than the rod being light-years in length, the parameters are
| values that occur in our daily experience."
You can check it at:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../Everyday.html

Hope this helps!

Dirk Vdm


Hmmm, I've been watching your argument, and it seems to me that in this
instance David is winning, but Dirk is getting a lot more laughs. In
order to get the gist of relativity, I find it much more helpful to
consider increasing the spatial scale, rather than trying to imagine
time in terms of nanoseconds, and keeping a macro-scale or femtoseconds
to introduce microscopic scale.

My demonstration:
http://www.spoonfedrelativity.com/files/relativity.swf
is in real-time, with 1 second=1 second, using fanciful GSV's
(Gargantuan Space Vehicles) which are hundreds of thousands of
kilmoeters across.

I included a note on the scale, stating:
"On this page, the speed of light is 10 pixels per second. This means
that each pixel must be 30,000 kilometers across. At this scale, the
earth is just 1/3 of a pixel across and the sun is 46 pixels across.
The actual distance between the sun and earth is 150 million
kilometers, which would be about 10 times the width of the screen."

Dirk, If I am not mistaken, you believe that beyond a certain length,
distance loses its meaning due to wavering of the scale factor of the
universe, or some effect of the cosmological constant, or ambiguities
in simulteneity, right? If I understand right, this ambiguity is the
main feature of the standard cosmological model, so you are in good
company. Is this why you don't find it reasonable to consider the idea
of a rotating cylinder 300,000 km long?