Subject: Re: Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity
From: Christopher R Volpe
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:38:51 -0500
HyprHacker wrote:
>
> I am in an honors Physics class in H.S. and I asked my teacher this, but
> he didn't know.
Ok.
> Let's say that I am travelling at the speed of light
Bzzzt. The question already has no answer because it is ill-posed.
> with a mirror in my
> hand (flying like superman). I can understand that I will see the light
> leaving my face at c, and that I will see my image in the mirror. My
> question is this: If I fly past you (whom can be considered
> "stationary"), will you see my image in the mirror, or will you see me
> catching up to the light leaving my face and not see my image. My teacher,
> facing embarresment, told me we can't go the speed of light. I said, OK
> then, theoretically speaking will you see the image.
There is no "theoretically speaking" once you have imposed theoretically
impossible conditions on the question. But you can talk about going .99
times the speed of light, if that helps...
> He replied even
> theoretically speaking we can't go the speed of light.
Right.
> My assumption is
> he doesn't believe in relativity then.
Wrong. The assumption is that he DOES believe in relativity, since that
is precisely what relativity calls for.
> I don't know. ALSO: If I was
> going at velocity c and shine a flashlight perpendicular to me (I'm flying
> like superman again), will I see a straight beam of light, and you see a
> curved beam?? Any help will be GREATLY appreciated!!
If you are travelling at some velocity arbitrarily close to that of
light relative to some observer whom we'll refer to as "stationary", the
observer will see your light (so to speak) travelling in a straight
line, but at an angle, not perpendicular to your direction of motion.
--
Chris Volpe Phone: (518) 387-7766
GE Corporate R&D; Fax: (518) 387-6560
PO Box 8 Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com
Schenectady, NY 12301 Web: http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr
Subject: Re: Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity
From: kobayash@cfa266.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi)
Date: 12 Dec 96 16:54:37 GMT
HyprHacker (hyprhacker@aol.com) wrote:
> Let's say that I am travelling at the speed of light with a mirror in my
> hand (flying like superman). I can understand that I will see the light
> leaving my face at c, and that I will see my image in the mirror. My
> question is this: If I fly past you (whom can be considered
> "stationary"), will you see my image in the mirror, or will you see me
> catching up to the light leaving my face and not see my image. My teacher,
> facing embarresment, told me we can't go the speed of light. I said, OK
> then, theoretically speaking will you see the image. He replied even
> theoretically speaking we can't go the speed of light. My assumption is
> he doesn't believe in relativity then. I don't know. ALSO: If I was
> going at velocity c and shine a flashlight perpendicular to me (I'm flying
> like superman again), will I see a straight beam of light, and you see a
> curved beam?? Any help will be GREATLY appreciated!!
Your teacher is correct. Theory of relativity dictates that a massive
particle cannot reach c. If a theory says something cannot happen,
you can't ask that same theory "but what if it was possible?".
Now, if you mean _almost_ the speed of light, then yes, you would see
your own face in the mirror, and people around you will see the
reflection as well. The flashlight beam will be straight for both
observers, but for you it'll look perpendicular to velocity, and for
another observer it'll look like it is going at an angle.
- Ken
Subject: Re: Creationism VS Evolution
From: Erik Marksberry
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:07:53 -0600
On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Steve Courton wrote:
[snip]
>
> > 4) ALL scientific evidence contradicts ALL parts of the story.
>
> Like what? The fact that we have sea life fossils at the tops of most
> mountains?
This is predicted by plate techtonics. I'm not quite sure what the
flood model predicts wrt this.
> Or the fact that so much vegetable matter was covered up
> that we've been using the coal and oil from it for ages?
Such as the tar and pitch Noah used in making the Ark? But wait,
if that stuff wasn't made until the flood, then how did Noah get his
hands on it?
> Or the fact
> that we find literally billions of fossils, though fossils do not form
> under normal conditions.
Huh? PLease explain.
> Plants and animals must be rapidly covered
> before decay and scavengers destroy them.
Sure, but a mudslide, blowing sand, or even a rainstorm can cover a
corpse quickly enough to preserve it. No global flood needed.
> No, there's absolutely NO
> evidence to support a worldwide flood!
>
> > 5) Difficult to beleive all races came from Noah's family.
>
> Difficult for who? You? But you believe marvelously complex and
> supremely designed things like human beings came about by pure chance?
Natural selection is not by chance.
> > 8) All sea life would die since old habitats would be in no-light
> > zone and silt would kill them also.
>
> Yep, God created the universe, but He just couldn't make that work.
So when the physical evidence does not correlate with your theory, you
adopt a "God did it" approach. Very scientific.
>
> > 9) What happened to fresh-water fish? Was the new water salty or
> > fresh? Both fresh and salt water species couldn't survive.
>
> What makes you think the sea was as salty then? Calculations based on
> the rate at which salt is deposited in the oceans yeild an age of the
> earth not more than about 10,000 years.
Bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed literature, please.
>
> > 10) Where did water come from, where did it go? Why didn't the polar
> > ice caps melt?
>
> The first paragraph above, which you are trying to refute, is an
> explaination of where the water could have come from. The polar ice
> caps perhaps formed after the flood, which also could have initated the
> ice age (Biblical justification too involved to go into here).
>
> > I am sure there are many more flaws, these came off the top of my head.
> > In fact I doubt there is a single realistic sentence in the entire
> > story. Only a moron could believe something so stupid.
>
> I'm not suggesting that one could PROVE that Biblical Creation took
> place, any more than one can PROVE that evolution took place. I
> maintain that Biblical Creation is more consistent with the actual
> physical evidence.
And when it is not consistent, hey, God did it!
--
Erik Marksberry
marksber@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
EARTH FIRST!!! We'll strip-mine the other planets later.
