[Only registered users see links. ] (Jeff Root) wrote in message news:<email@example.com. com>...
Depends what you mean by "the effect". Time dilation is a function of
But the rapid advancement observed at the turnaround occurs because of
the turnaround, which of course goes hand-in-hand with the
To find the relationship between the observed rate of advancement and
acceleration, differentiate the LT with respect to t and solve for t'.
SR deals only with inertial frames...no acceleration, no gravitation...
only space and time coordinates. But there are an infinite number of
these frames relative to an observer. If you were to enumerate these
frames (the primed (') frames) with respect to an observer's frame (the
O frame),then they can be specified by their translated coordinates
(includingthe coordinate including time (ct). Furthermore, if there is
a relativevelocity between these frames and the O frame, then O would
observe their spacetime diagrams to not be Euclidean, as his is.
Rather, the primed axes are "rotated" inward such that they are no
longer perpindicular (at least according to O). Instead, they form an
angle theta = tanh^-1(v/c). You can easily draw the events on these
Minkowski diagrams and see that there is a difference in durations and
distances (i.e. an object stationary in O has a vertical line...yet it
is not "vertical" in the primed frame...i.e. it is in motion). This
is how I prefer to look at it...time dilation becomes more intuitive
with these diagrams. Pardon the crudeness of my diagram:
Finally, because physics is the same for all inertial frames AND because
the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames, clocks must
necessarily run differently (as observed from one frame to another). If
you accept these two postulates from Einstein then you should see that
1) events simultaneous in one frame are not in another
2) time dilation occurs
3) length contraction occurs
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
Argh! Here I am propagating the meme! In my defense, I verified my
prior to posting with Ch. 10 of [Only registered users see links. ]
(so I inherited that meme from....you?) ;-)
Thanks for keeping me straight. You are a wealth of information and
your presence here is appreciated by me.
"stmx3" <[Only registered users see links. ]> skrev i melding news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
I don't think the book states that "SR deals only with inertial frames".
(I am not sure, though. I haven't read it thoroughly.)
I states that the postulates of SR is valid only in inertial frames.
That's no different from Newtonian mechanics.
Newton's laws of motion (as they normally are formulated) are
valid only in inertial frames.
But both SR and NM can be used to describe what will happen
observed in accelerated frames.
Or in rotating frames, like the ground frame.
In the introductory paragraphs, the 2nd from the last paragraph says
" Special Relativity may be divided into two topics, *kinematics*
and *dynamics*. Kinematics deals with lengths, times, speeds, etc. It
is basically concerned with only the space and time coordinates, and not
with masses, forces, energy, momentum, etc. Dynamics, on the other
hand, does deal with these quantities."
Obviously, I ran with kinematics, treating it as all of SR. So, you are
right about the text.
I think I'll limit my posts since I've lately been retracting and
correcting most of them. But I'm glad my misconceptions are being
"stmx3" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
It would *not* have been a meme from me, indeed ;-)
Making mistakes can be a bit confusing for those you
are trying to help, but for yourself (and for them) it is
a good way to learn (if you don't mind being corrected
I guess one has to find a balance between:
"making mistakes + confuse audience + learn"
"making no mistakes + help audience + stagnate".
Specially if you count in the possibility of not being
corrected and thus helping the proliferation of bad
Can be difficult indeed.
Nah.... just put a bit straight...
Expunging is reserved for the trolls and for the
arrogant ones ;-)
(I don't want to be *too* contrite in any one post)
In truth, I've had all this in the past...but I'm one of those physics
majors that ended up on a non-physics track. Use it or lose it. I
lost it. At least I misplaced it and am trying to dig it out from all
the junk that's accumulated in my mental attic.
I at least like to acknowledge I've made a mistake, especially when
done while trying to help the audience. And surprisingly I've suffered
nary a whip or a scorn.