Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #428677 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-14 17:32 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-08-18 23:39 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The train on the mined bridge Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 17:32 +0200
Re: The train on the mined bridge rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:59 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2017-08-14 08:59 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:00 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 18:35 +0200
Re: The train on the mined bridge rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:41 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 21:35 +0200
Re: The train on the mined bridge rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 06:33 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 17:18 +0200
Re: The train on the mined bridge rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 08:35 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-14 20:09 +0000
Re: The train on the mined bridge Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 22:35 +0200
Re: The train on the mined bridge "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-14 09:23 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:33 -0700
Stephane Baune posts another cretinism "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-14 09:48 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune posts another cretinism rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 10:34 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 07:11 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-16 16:27 +0200
Re: The train on the mined bridge "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 08:00 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 10:20 -0500
Re: The train on the mined bridge "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 08:41 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 10:45 -0500
Re: The train on the mined bridge "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 08:55 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 11:05 -0500
Re: The train on the mined bridge rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 08:58 -0700
Imbecile Stephamr Baune at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 09:05 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephamr Baune at work rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 10:33 -0700
Re: Imbecile Stephamr Baune exposed as a fraud "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 10:48 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-16 22:37 -0500
Re: The train on the mined bridge rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 22:23 -0700
Tom Roberts chimes in (with a new imbecility) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 06:35 -0700
Re: Poor Andrew Georges Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-17 17:33 +0200
Python continues to suck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 08:36 -0700
Re: Python continues to suck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 10:56 -0500
Re: Andrew Georges keeps digging Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-17 18:17 +0200
Python keep posting imbecilities "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 09:22 -0700
Re: Andrew Georges digging deeper and deeper Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-17 18:37 +0200
Imbecile Liar Python eats (even more) shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 09:42 -0700
Re: Andrew George in despair Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-17 18:50 +0200
Python digs deeper in his lies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 10:12 -0700
Re: Python digs deeper in his lies rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 12:29 -0700
Stephane Baune posts edited quotes "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 14:39 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune posts edited quotes rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 16:35 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune posts edited quotes "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 16:36 -0700
Stephane Baune, lowest form of scum "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 16:35 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune, lowest form of scum rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 16:44 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune, lowest form of scum "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 16:46 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune, lowest form of scum rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 17:11 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune, lowest form of scum "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 18:48 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune, lowest form of scum rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 19:31 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune, lowest form of scum "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 20:14 -0700
Stephane Baune - scumbag "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 16:42 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune - scumbag rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 16:46 -0700
Re: Stephane Baune - scumbag "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-17 16:47 -0700
Re: Python digs deeper in his lies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 07:06 -0700
Re: Andrew Georges and his cognitive disease strike again Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-18 11:14 +0200
Python rushes to suck d!ck to Sttephane Baune. gain. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 07:05 -0700
Re: Python rushes to suck d!ck to Sttephane Baune. gain. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 07:18 -0700
Re: Python rushes to suck d!ck to Sttephane Baune. gain. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 07:23 -0700
Re: Andrew Georges highly confused Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-18 16:53 +0200
Python persists in his imbecility "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 07:58 -0700
Re: Python persists in his imbecility rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 10:58 -0700
Re: Python persists in his imbecility and Stephane Baune cranks up his dishonesty "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 12:55 -0700
Re: Python persists in his imbecility and Stephane Baune cranks up his dishonesty rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 13:43 -0700
Scumbag Stephane Baune digs himself deeper into his lies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 14:31 -0700
Re: Scumbag Stephane Baune digs himself deeper into his lies rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:33 -0700
Re: Scumbag Stephane Baune digs himself deeper into his lies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 14:36 -0700
Re: Scumbag Stephane Baune digs himself deeper into his lies rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:42 -0700
Re: Scumbag Stephane Baune digs himself deeper into his lies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 14:53 -0700
Re: Scumbag Stephane Baune digs himself deeper into his lies rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 15:42 -0700
Re: Scumbag Stephane Baune digs himself deeper into his lies "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 15:47 -0700
Re: Scumbag Stephane Baune digs himself deeper into his lies Elma Sneijders <elsn@uejdui.fe> - 2017-08-18 21:40 +0000
Imbecile Python has his brain shaken by sucking up to crackpot Stephane Baune "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 07:33 -0700
Re: Andrew George half-backpedalling Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-18 16:57 +0200
Python keeps eating shit "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 08:00 -0700
Re: Andrew Georges turning in circles Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-08-18 17:06 +0200
Pythom insists on sucking up to conman Stephane Baune "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-18 08:37 -0700
Re: Imbecile Python has his brain shaken by sucking up to crackpot Stephane Baune rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 11:10 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 07:37 -0700
Cretin Stephane Baune at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-16 08:01 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 18:43 +0200
Re: The train on the mined bridge "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-08-14 09:49 -0700
Re: The train on the mined bridge Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-16 19:13 +1000
Re: The train on the mined bridge Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-18 23:39 +0200
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 17:32 +0200 |
| Subject | The train on the mined bridge |
| Message-ID | <omsfq5$omq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
The AB bridge and the MN train have both their own length of 16 dashes. The train has the speed of gamma=2. Bridge AB has been mined and the contact for the explosion of the explosive is carried out by the train itself by connecting between point A and point B. So the explosion only occurs if the MN train is long enough to make contact. In the (reference) frame of terrain the train is contracted to the middle (8 dashes) and passes without closing the contact, so the explosion does not occur: -----------M------>N-------------------- -----------A---------------B----------->x Instead in the (reference) frame of the train (long 16) is the bridge to be contracted to the middle (8 dashes): ---M-------------->N------------- -----------A-------B----------->x And so the contact between A and B is already in this position and the explosion takes place. Will the train be saved or not? -- Luigi Fortunati Credere e' piu' facile che pensare Believing is easier than thinking
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58e0792f-276a-43cd-9764-80dcfab4d8bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428677 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:32:29 AM UTC-4, Luigi Fortunati wrote: > The AB bridge and the MN train have both their own length of 16 dashes. > > The train has the speed of gamma=2. > > Bridge AB has been mined and the contact for the explosion of the > explosive is carried out by the train itself by connecting between > point A and point B. You might have to elaborate on that since its somewhat ambiguous. > So the explosion only occurs if the MN train is long enough to make > contact. When they are both one over the other, and at rest wrt each other. Thus the "loop" is closed and BOOM [*thats not quite the correct explanation, but we will work that out later]. > In the (reference) frame of terrain the train is contracted to the > middle (8 dashes) and passes without closing the contact, so the > explosion does not occur: > -----------M------>N-------------------- > -----------A---------------B----------->x Since N & M are not touching, the "loop" is not closed, hence no BOOM. [*] > Instead in the (reference) frame of the train (long 16) is the bridge > to be contracted to the middle (8 dashes): > ---M-------------->N------------- > -----------A-------B----------->x > > And so the contact between A and B is already in this position and the > explosion takes place. Since M & A are not touching, the "loop" is not closed, hence no BOOM [*]. > Will the train be saved or not? Not according to your very vague conditions. Here, I interpreted your explosion as being done whenever the "loop" is closed. Did you intend a different ignition process? Start over a new thread being more concise & clear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8a4003f-bad1-4363-9fa6-ae605d01019a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428677 |
El lunes, 14 de agosto de 2017, 12:32:29 (UTC-3), Luigi Fortunati escribió: > The AB bridge and the MN train have both their own length of 16 dashes. > > The train has the speed of gamma=2. > > Bridge AB has been mined and the contact for the explosion of the > explosive is carried out by the train itself by connecting between > point A and point B. > > So the explosion only occurs if the MN train is long enough to make > contact. > > In the (reference) frame of terrain the train is contracted to the > middle (8 dashes) and passes without closing the contact, so the > explosion does not occur: > -----------M------>N-------------------- > -----------A---------------B----------->x > > Instead in the (reference) frame of the train (long 16) is the bridge > to be contracted to the middle (8 dashes): > ---M-------------->N------------- > -----------A-------B----------->x > > And so the contact between A and B is already in this position and the > explosion takes place. > > Will the train be saved or not? > > -- > Luigi Fortunati > > Credere e' piu' facile che pensare > Believing is easier than thinking This is another version of the pole and barn paradox. Relativity of simutaneity gives the answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 09:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb6e328c-f93f-431c-8d12-783f34a46405@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428677 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 11:32:29 AM UTC-4, Luigi Fortunati wrote: > The AB bridge and the MN train have both their own length of 16 dashes. > > The train has the speed of gamma=2. > > Bridge AB has been mined and the contact for the explosion of the > explosive is carried out by the train itself by connecting between > point A and point B. You might have to elaborate on that since its somewhat ambiguous. > So the explosion only occurs if the MN train is long enough to make > contact. When they are both one over the other, and at rest wrt each other. Thus the "loop" is closed and BOOM [*thats not quite the correct explanation, but we will work that out later]. > In the (reference) frame of terrain the train is contracted to the > middle (8 dashes) and passes without closing the contact, so the > explosion does not occur: > -----------M------>N-------------------- > -----------A---------------B----------->x Since N & B are not touching, the "loop" is not closed, hence no BOOM. [*] > Instead in the (reference) frame of the train (long 16) is the bridge > to be contracted to the middle (8 dashes): > ---M-------------->N------------- > -----------A-------B----------->x > > And so the contact between A and B is already in this position and the > explosion takes place. Since M & A are not touching, the "loop" is not closed, hence no BOOM [*]. > Will the train be saved or not? Not according to your very vague conditions. Here, I interpreted your explosion as being done whenever the "loop" is closed. Did you intend a different ignition process? Start over a new thread being more concise & clear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 18:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <omsjhc$u97$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428685 |
rotchm alle ore 18:00:08 del 14/08/2017 ha scritto: >> The AB bridge and the MN train have both their own length of 16 dashes. >> >> The train has the speed of gamma=2. >> >> Bridge AB has been mined and the contact for the explosion of the >> explosive is carried out by the train itself by connecting between >> point A and point B. > > You might have to elaborate on that since its somewhat ambiguous. > >> So the explosion only occurs if the MN train is long enough to make >> contact. > > When they are both one over the other, and at rest wrt each other. Thus the > "loop" is closed and BOOM [*thats not quite the correct explanation, but we > will work that out later]. > >> In the (reference) frame of terrain the train is contracted to the >> middle (8 dashes) and passes without closing the contact, so the >> explosion does not occur: >> -----------M------>N-------------------- >> -----------A---------------B----------->x > > Since N & B are not touching, the "loop" is not closed, hence no BOOM. > [*] > >> Instead in the (reference) frame of the train (long 16) is the bridge >> to be contracted to the middle (8 dashes): >> ---M-------------->N------------- >> -----------A-------B----------->x >> >> And so the contact between A and B is already in this position and the >> explosion takes place. > > Since M & A are not touching, the "loop" is not closed, hence no BOOM [*]. > >> Will the train be saved or not? > > Not according to your very vague conditions. Here, I interpreted your > explosion as being done whenever the "loop" is closed. Did you intend a > different ignition process? Start over a new thread being more concise & > clear. For the explosion it is sufficient that two points "whatever" of the train touch A and B, it is not necessary that N touch B and M touch A. -- Luigi Fortunati Credere e' piu' facile che pensare Believing is easier than thinking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 09:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <841f0a58-074a-4beb-8672-3d4647b3f6bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428691 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:36:02 PM UTC-4, Luigi Fortunati wrote: > For the explosion it is sufficient that two points "whatever" of the > train touch A and B, it is not necessary that N touch B and M touch A. ?? Thats a weird setup! The train will ALWAYS explode then, since in all cases A will eventually touch M (and N) and that B will eventually touch M (and N). Are you sure you are expressing yourself clearly in your description/reply?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 21:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <omsu19$1ds4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428694 |
rotchm alle ore 18:41:51 del 14/08/2017 ha scritto: >> For the explosion it is sufficient that two points "whatever" of the >> train touch A and B, it is not necessary that N touch B and M touch A. > > > ?? Thats a weird setup! The train will ALWAYS explode then, since in all > cases A will eventually touch M (and N) and that B will eventually touch M > (and N). > > Are you sure you are expressing yourself clearly in your description/reply? The MN train has an uncovered copper wire that goes from head N to tail M. In this position ---M------>N-------------------- -----------A---------------B----------->x The copper wire is in contact with point A and remains in contact with it as the train advances. It's as if point A was stretched to B. Well, if this elongation (equal to the length MN) reaches B without losing contact with A, the explosion occurs, otherwise it does not happen. Is the context now clear? -- Luigi Fortunati Credere e' piu' facile che pensare Believing is easier than thinking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 06:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <064e114a-248d-4bad-843d-1296d11b2c51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428726 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 3:35:11 PM UTC-4, Luigi Fortunati wrote: > rotchm alle ore 18:41:51 del 14/08/2017 ha scritto: > >> For the explosion it is sufficient that two points "whatever" of the > >> train touch A and B, it is not necessary that N touch B and M touch A. > > > > > > ?? Thats a weird setup! The train will ALWAYS explode then, since in all > > cases A will eventually touch M (and N) and that B will eventually touch M > > (and N). > > > > Are you sure you are expressing yourself clearly in your description/reply? > > The MN train has an uncovered copper wire that goes from head N to tail > M. > > In this position > ---M------>N-------------------- > -----------A---------------B----------->x > The copper wire is in contact with point A and remains in contact with > it as the train advances. > > It's as if point A was stretched to B. > > Well, if this elongation (equal to the length MN) reaches B without > losing contact with A, the explosion occurs, otherwise it does not > happen. > > Is the context now clear? somewhat, but you are still missing a lot of necessary info. Like, where is the bomb located? on the train at the head or tail? For instance, if its at the head, it will always explode. If at the tail, it will never explode. Then again, What is the condition, the rule, that triggers it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 17:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <omv3bl$g7l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428830 |
rotchm alle ore 15:33:25 del 15/08/2017 ha scritto: >> The MN train has an uncovered copper wire that goes from head N to tail >> M. >> >> In this position >> ---M------>N-------------------- >> -----------A---------------B----------->x >> The copper wire is in contact with point A and remains in contact with >> it as the train advances. >> >> It's as if point A was stretched to B. >> >> Well, if this elongation (equal to the length MN) reaches B without >> losing contact with A, the explosion occurs, otherwise it does not >> happen. >> >> Is the context now clear? > > somewhat, but you are still missing a lot of necessary info. Like, where is > the bomb located? on the train at the head or tail? For instance, if its at > the head, it will always explode. If at the tail, it will never explode. Then > again, What is the condition, the rule, that triggers it? The bomb is on the bridge near B and not on the train. The condition that triggers the explosion is that in B there is a switch that hits at the arrival of the current flowing from the train itself from A to B. -- Luigi Fortunati Credere e' piu' facile che pensare Believing is easier than thinking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 08:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6582d005-e4f6-472b-b04e-ea3933403a07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428843 |
On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 11:18:25 AM UTC-4, Luigi Fortunati wrote: > > The condition that triggers the explosion is that in B there is a > switch that hits at the arrival of the current flowing from the train > itself from A to B. ?? I dont follow. Not clear enough. You might have to restate the whole setup. Do this: Think up the setup, not using wires but just light sources that will turn on (or off), and detectors that will detect the received light. And then decide where you want the trigger (bomb) and what are the conditions that will trigger it ( received two light, or receiving two light, or just one, etc...). Thinking it up that way will make it simpler and will show you how to treat the finite speed of light in your setup. (in wires, you must also consider this, the speed of transmission of the electricity).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 20:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <omt01r$mse$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #428691 |
Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> writes: >For the explosion it is sufficient that two points "whatever" of the >train touch A and B, it is not necessary that N touch B and M touch A. How about this modification of the problem: The train itself is electrically conductive between M and N. The bridge is an insulator between A and B, but is electrically conductive from A to the left, and from B to the right. A voltage source is connected to A and B. If (M is over or to the left of A), AND (N is over or to the right of B), current will flow, otherwise no current flows. Does current flow as the train passes over the bridge? Now that I think about it, this isn't going to work because the electric current itself is limited by the speed of light.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Fortunati <fortunati.luigi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 22:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <omt1ij$1ipd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428736 |
Michael Moroney alle ore 22:09:31 del 14/08/2017 ha scritto: >> For the explosion it is sufficient that two points "whatever" of the >> train touch A and B, it is not necessary that N touch B and M touch A. > > How about this modification of the problem: > > The train itself is electrically conductive between M and N. Perfect. > The bridge is an insulator between A and B, but is electrically > conductive from A to the left, and from B to the right. > > A voltage source is connected to A and B. > > If (M is over or to the left of A), AND (N is over or to the right > of B), current will flow, otherwise no current flows. Ok. > Does current flow as the train passes over the bridge? > > Now that I think about it, this isn't going to work because the > electric current itself is limited by the speed of light. I do not understand what influence this limit may have. -- Luigi Fortunati Credere e' piu' facile che pensare Believing is easier than thinking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 09:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0fee719-e709-44fd-ae77-f65c0dabfcc6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428677 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-7, Luigi Fortunati wrote: If you assumed that the train is stationary and the bridge is moving with -v you would be getting the same exact answer in both cases: no explosion since the ends of the bridge do not coincide with the ends of the train in EITHER of the two cases. This is the easiest solution to your exercise, requires virtually no calculations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 09:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc43cb14-e89e-46d8-85e8-bfc6a68dbab7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428688 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-7, Luigi Fortunati wrote: > If you assumed that the train is stationary and the bridge is moving with -v you would be getting the same exact answer in both cases: no explosion since the ends of the bridge do not coincide with the ends of the train in EITHER of the two cases. This is the easiest solution to your exercise, requires virtually no calculations. Just to mention, that there exist an inertial frame such that the train & track have the same speed. Thus the train and track have the same length in that frame. Thus the contacts will be simultaneous in that frame. Any BOOM concluded? This is why I put an " * " in my reply to him, as a future explanation/caveat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 09:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Stephane Baune posts another cretinism |
| Message-ID | <fe48ba8c-d9e6-4108-9b18-c85aefa181ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428690 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:33:51 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > > Just to mention, that there exist an inertial frame such that the train & track have the same speed. You have posted this cretinism before. The train and the track are in relative motion, so there is no frame "such that the train & track have the same speed."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 10:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Stephane Baune posts another cretinism |
| Message-ID | <80d2ec83-9595-4f6f-ad92-89547ea54da8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428699 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:48:48 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > The train and the track are in relative motion, so there is no > frame "such that the train & track have the same speed. Argh!!! Do you force yourself to make up such stupidity so as to have a void heated debate??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ade5c19-7510-46e6-860e-be2afbc93715@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428690 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:33:51 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-7, Luigi Fortunati wrote: > > If you assumed that the train is stationary and the bridge is moving with -v you would be getting the same exact answer in both cases: no explosion since the ends of the bridge do not coincide with the ends of the train in EITHER of the two cases. This is the easiest solution to your exercise, requires virtually no calculations. > > Just to mention, that there exist an inertial frame such that the train & track have the same speed. That would mean that there is a frame in which there is zero relative motion between the track and the train. Which is false. > Thus the train and track have the same length in that frame. Thus the contacts will be simultaneous in that frame. Any BOOM concluded? According you your above reasoning, yes, there would be an explosion in THAT frame. According to mainstream SR, there is no explosion. Go figure, Stephane. >This is why I put an " * " in my reply to him, as a future explanation/caveat. Just another crankery brought to you by the resident crank, Stephane Baune.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 16:27 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <on1kpa$5v9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #428989 |
Andrew Georges wrote: > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:33:51 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: >> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: >>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-7, Luigi Fortunati wrote: >>> If you assumed that the train is stationary and the bridge is moving with -v you would be getting the same exact answer in both cases: no explosion since the ends of the bridge do not coincide with the ends of the train in EITHER of the two cases. This is the easiest solution to your exercise, requires virtually no calculations. >> >> Just to mention, that there exist an inertial frame such that the train & track have the same speed. > > That would mean that there is a frame in which there is zero relative > motion between the track and the train Hum, no Mr Georges that would not necessarily mean that. You may have the same speed with velocities in different directions. Two cars can run on the same road at 50mph (with respect to the road) without being at rest relative to each other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 08:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14e96e73-b493-489f-a656-44deea239b32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #428993 |
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 7:27:57 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: > Andrew Georges wrote: > > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:33:51 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > >> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-7, Luigi Fortunati wrote: > >>> If you assumed that the train is stationary and the bridge is moving with -v you would be getting the same exact answer in both cases: no explosion since the ends of the bridge do not coincide with the ends of the train in EITHER of the two cases. This is the easiest solution to your exercise, requires virtually no calculations. > >> > >> Just to mention, that there exist an inertial frame such that the train & track have the same speed. > > > > That would mean that there is a frame in which there is zero relative > > motion between the track and the train > > Hum, no Mr Georges that would not necessarily mean that. You may > have the same speed with velocities in different directions. > > Two cars can run on the same road at 50mph (with respect to the road) > without being at rest relative to each other. Sure, But that is not the general acceptance of "same speed". Two cars running down the street at your 50mph, for example, is the general acceptance of the term.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 10:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <on1nsn$a1g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #429000 |
On 8/16/17 10:00 AM, Dono, wrote: > On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 7:27:57 AM UTC-7, Python wrote: >> Andrew Georges wrote: >>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:33:51 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 8:32:29 AM UTC-7, Luigi Fortunati wrote: >>>>> If you assumed that the train is stationary and the bridge is moving with -v you would be getting the same exact answer in both cases: no explosion since the ends of the bridge do not coincide with the ends of the train in EITHER of the two cases. This is the easiest solution to your exercise, requires virtually no calculations. >>>> >>>> Just to mention, that there exist an inertial frame such that the train & track have the same speed. >>> >>> That would mean that there is a frame in which there is zero relative >>> motion between the track and the train >> >> Hum, no Mr Georges that would not necessarily mean that. You may >> have the same speed with velocities in different directions. >> >> Two cars can run on the same road at 50mph (with respect to the road) >> without being at rest relative to each other. > > Sure, > > But that is not the general acceptance of "same speed". Two cars running down the street at your 50mph, for example, is the general acceptance of the term. > I'm sorry but I'm not following. There's a highway near my neighborhood with speed limit 75 mph and it runs north-south, roughly. The cars on that highway are going 80 mph regardless whether they are going north or south. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web