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*: Thu, 6 Nov 2014 17:19:57 -0800

Thank you for the corrected links. Now I opened safely your site and read it. It is well written. But its conclusions are the same as in my first two comments. Let me summarize the whole thing again.

1). If all parts of an object undergo equal and synchronous accelerations along some fixed direction N in a fixed inertial reference frame (RF) A, the object's shape conserves in this frame.

2). Assuming the object started from rest and acquires final velocity V, it is now Lorentz-contracted along N, which in view of 1) means that its PROPER length along N has increased by Lorentz factor gamma (V). The proper shape in these conditions does not conserve in the comoving frame B.

3). Due to relativity of time, the object's clocks along N read different times at one moment of A-time. The front clock reads earlier time than the rear clock. This means that acceleration program works earlier at the front than at the rear in B, which stretches the object along N, thus increasing its proper length. This explains the underlying dynamics of the process and shows that Geometry alone is not the whole story.

Properties 1) - 3) are expressed in a few lines, and in doing this I have used old-fashioned length contraction and local time, without any geometry. Nevertheless, I remained alive - to see again that Physics and Geometry are two sides of the same coin. This is the best coined by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler in their famous "Gravitation": "Matter tells the spacetime how to curve. Spacetime tells the matter how to move."

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>

**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] The Impulse Momentum Theorem** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-L] The Impulse Momentum Theorem** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [Phys-L] proper acceleration, proper time, proper length, spacetime geometry and trigonometry** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-L] relativistic acceleration of an extended object** - Index(es):