On my blog there is a link to:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Is that thread still available anywhere? (It’s about a relativity based exam question).

The Rev Dodgson said:

On my blog there is a link to:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Is that thread still available anywhere? (It’s about a relativity based exam question).

Can’t help I’m sorry Rev. I don’t usually follow relativity threads.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On my blog there is a link to:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Is that thread still available anywhere? (It’s about a relativity based exam question).

Can’t help I’m sorry Rev. I don’t usually follow relativity threads.

They can be hard to keep up with.

(weak joke :))

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On my blog there is a link to:
http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Is that thread still available anywhere? (It’s about a relativity based exam question).

Can’t help I’m sorry Rev. I don’t usually follow relativity threads.

They can be hard to keep up with.

(weak joke :))

Relatively speaking
(even weaker joke:))

I’d imagine this will be difficult to find without a thread title.

Bubblecar said:

I’d imagine this will be difficult to find without a thread title.

The thread title was:

From: KJW (Maths) 17/12/2008 10:49:59 PM

Subject: re: Relativity Question from VCE exam post id: 3942112

I wonder if KJW keeps these old threads

Link to blog post, in case anyone’s interested:
https://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/physics-puzzle/

Someone here has archived a shed load of SSSF information. I just cannot remember who it is.

MZL might have it.

sibeen said:

Someone here has archived a shed load of SSSF information. I just cannot remember who it is.

that’s ok, i can.

ChrispenEvan said:

MZL might have it.

I think you might be right.

Is SCIENCE his name here?

Thank you for your assistance, Michael V.

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

MZL might have it.

I think you might be right.

Is SCIENCE his name here?

it’s undefined.

and, for sibeen

I’m not hungry, but thanks for the offer.

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

MZL might have it.

I think you might be right.

Is SCIENCE his name here?

Judging by the conversations SCIENCE has with various people, I’m gonna say…yes.

Wayback machine has it

http://archive.org/web/

http://web.archive.org/web/20081218153455/http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wayback machine has it

http://archive.org/web/

http://web.archive.org/web/20081218153455/http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Paste the link in

then when it finds it under the URL click on

Saved 1 time on December 18, 2008

it you click on the url it goes to the ABC homepage

you have to click on the date

hope that makes sense, Im a bit ripped

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wayback machine has it

http://archive.org/web/

http://web.archive.org/web/20081218153455/http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Ahh, now I see the connection. to “Old Fred”

“Fred sees light from both when he’s adjacent to Nancy. That means in the train’s frame the matches were struck before Fred was adjacent to Nancy. Thus Bob was closer to Nancy. But I can see issues with defining “the instant Fred and Nancy are opposite each other”. And possibly others, but I haven’t thought about simultaneity since I was an undergraduate.”

Simultaneity is a bastard in relativity, because it depends on the velocity of the observer. If A were to see events B and C as simultaneous then D never would, because the probability that D’s velocity and position can be made to exactly match that of A is zero.

Old Fred,

WayBack Machine is one way to get around the ABC’s deletion of the old site.

It doesn’t have everything though, so keep that in mind.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wayback machine has it

http://archive.org/web/

http://web.archive.org/web/20081218153455/http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Thanks T.N. The link took me straight there.

Now pdfed on my local drive (all 111 pages of it!)

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wayback machine has it

http://archive.org/web/

http://web.archive.org/web/20081218153455/http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Ahh, now I see the connection. to “Old Fred”

“Fred sees light from both when he’s adjacent to Nancy. That means in the train’s frame the matches were struck before Fred was adjacent to Nancy. Thus Bob was closer to Nancy. But I can see issues with defining “the instant Fred and Nancy are opposite each other”. And possibly others, but I haven’t thought about simultaneity since I was an undergraduate.”

Simultaneity is a bastard in relativity, because it depends on the velocity of the observer. If A were to see events B and C as simultaneous then D never would, because the probability that D’s velocity and position can be made to exactly match that of A is zero.

Actually the old thread having a Fred in it was pure coincidence (or maybe sub-conscious non-coincidence).

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wayback machine has it

http://archive.org/web/

http://web.archive.org/web/20081218153455/http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Thanks T.N. The link took me straight there.

Now pdfed on my local drive (all 111 pages of it!)

Lot of long-lost friends in that fred.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Wayback machine has it

http://archive.org/web/

http://web.archive.org/web/20081218153455/http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/3937/topic3937797.shtm

Thanks T.N. The link took me straight there.

Now pdfed on my local drive (all 111 pages of it!)

Lot of long-lost friends in that fred.

Yes, they don’t make freds like that any more.

I hope KJW drops by and enjoys re-reading it anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Thanks T.N. The link took me straight there.

Now pdfed on my local drive (all 111 pages of it!)

Lot of long-lost friends in that fred.

Yes, they don’t make freds like that any more.

I hope KJW drops by and enjoys re-reading it anyway.

When I was a lad and old Fred was a pup, over hills and meadows we’d roam,
just a boy and his dog. we were both best of pals,

recon you could make a song out of this, Shep is proly a better name, but you get the idea.

bob(from black rock) said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Lot of long-lost friends in that fred.

Yes, they don’t make freds like that any more.

I hope KJW drops by and enjoys re-reading it anyway.

When I was a lad and old Fred was a pup, over hills and meadows we’d roam,
just a boy and his dog. we were both best of pals,

recon you could make a song out of this, Shep is proly a better name, but you get the idea.

Yes Mr Presley.