Chronology |
Current Month |
Current Thread |
Current Date |

[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |

*From*: Moses Fayngold <moshfarlan@yahoo.com>*Date*: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 09:12:59 -0800

I reread carefully the previous correspondence. UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT I TOOK CARE TO EXPLICITLY FORMULATE, I do not see any errors in my conclusions. If you admit that they may be correct "...perhaps in the non-relativistic limit... ", this is already killing for your statements since the non-relativistic limit is merely a part of relativistic domain. The high school relationship between given acceleration and resulting displacement (starting from rest) which I used, is universal, mass-independent, and applies at any, even superluminal, speed. The latter may be realized, e.g., by an appropriate light spot zipping across a screen (the mathematical structure of Relativity treats superluminal and subluminal motions on the same footing).

As to your article, I had explained why I could not read it. Reciprocally, you could read my article with much more detailed analysis of the whole situation than presented here, and under different possible conditions. As to your statement "Shape is determined by proper length..." , I can also refer to another relevant article, "Two Permanently Congruent Rods May Have Different Proper Lengths" in the arXiv.

I would appreciate if anyone could show where and why my arguments are wrong.

Moses Fayngold,

NJIT

On Saturday, November 1, 2014 1:19 PM, John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> wrote:

On 11/01/2014 09:51 AM, Moses Fayngold wrote:

But I have some comment on the basic statement in the text itself:

"...in order for the object to maintain its shape, different parts

will need to accelerate at different rates".

This statement is ambiguous. Its truth value depends on the chosen

reference frame (RF) and on definition of "shape".

If you would read the article, you would find the answers

to those questions. Acceleration means proper acceleration

at each point. Shape is determined by proper length, measured

along a contour of constant time. All observers agree that

the contour in question *is* a contour of constant time, so

there is no ambiguity whatsoever.

Let us define the

shape as an instantaneous configuration of the object in a given RF.

Then it is easy to see that in the initial rest frame of the object

(frame A), the statement is wrong.

It's not wrong.

Different acceleration rates for

different parts will surely distort the shape.

False. Read the article already.

In order to conserve

it in A, we need the same acceleration a for all parts.

False (except perhaps in the non-relativistic limit, which

is not what we are talking about here).

Would it kill ya to read the article?

_______________________________________________

Forum for Physics Educators

Phys-l@www.phys-l.org

http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Phys-L] relativistic acceleration of an extended object***From:*John Mallinckrodt <ajm@cpp.edu>

**Re: [Phys-L] relativistic acceleration of an extended object***From:*Ken Caviness <caviness@southern.edu>

**References**:**Re: [Phys-L] relativistic acceleration of an extended object***From:*Moses Fayngold <moshfarlan@yahoo.com>

**Re: [Phys-L] relativistic acceleration of an extended object***From:*John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [Phys-L] parallax in astronomy** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-L] parallax in astronomy** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-L] relativistic acceleration of an extended object** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-L] relativistic acceleration of an extended object** - Index(es):