Science > Physics > Rotation is not relative, since it creates relatively real linear velocities
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Neil Bates" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2007 08:47:06 PM |
| Object: |
Rotation is not relative, since it creates relatively real linear velocities |
Thoroughgoing Machian GR says that *all* motion is relative, even
accelerated motion. Hence, a "spinning" wheel can be thought of at rest,
with the centrifugal forces on it being created by motion of the matter
beyond it. (Actually, not in the same sense as when charges start to
accelerate at a distance, for then there would be a time delay..) But assume
that at least linear motion is relative and real to that extent. Then, since
relative linear motions are "real" they can be used to make distinctions
between situations. Consider that a rotating body has actual relative
velocity vectors of parts of itself relative to any given other part! (For
example, each other point (if v << c) moves at v = -R cross omega,
where R is the connecting separation and not r of a circle etc.)
The magnitudes depend on omega, which is thus real per that consideration
(which does not invoke any mechanical or inertial effects.) I know,
rotation itself redefines that perhaps, but just taking the bare idea of
"relative velocity" and applying it to rotation, yields this result.
A paradox of understanding? A decent refutation of pan-relativism?
What say you?
(This belongs in several NGs for good discussion, so away with you, mindless
anti-cross posters!)
http://tyrannogenius.blogspot.com
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Rotation is not relative, since it creates relatively real linearvelocities |
12 Jun 2007 09:39:48 AM |
|
|
Neil Bates wrote:
Thoroughgoing Machian GR says that *all* motion is relative, even
accelerated motion.
Acceleration is an absolute measurement in hermetic isolation.
Acceleration is a local property. Three orthogonal laser ring gyros
and Bob is your Uncle. Or do it mechanically with three orthogonal
microfabricated cantilever mechanical accelerometers.
Hence, a "spinning" wheel can be thought of at rest,
with the centrifugal forces on it being created by motion of the matter
beyond it.
[snip crap]
Poison the well and every sip is tainted. Hey stooopid - it cannot be
gravitation because time passage would be altered. It cannot be
inertia because acceleration is an absolute measurement in hermetic
isolation. Acceleration is a local property. It cannot be anything
else because we've come to the end of the list.
A decent refutation of pan-relativism?
How will you spin the universe to have consistency among three
orthogonal spinning wheels?
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Bates" |
|
| Title: Re: Rotation is not relative, since it creates relatively real linear velocities |
12 Jun 2007 04:22:21 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:466EB034.5E8D18FB@hate.spam.net...
Neil Bates wrote:
Thoroughgoing Machian GR says that *all* motion is relative, even
accelerated motion.
Acceleration is an absolute measurement in hermetic isolation.
Acceleration is a local property. Three orthogonal laser ring gyros
and Bob is your Uncle. Or do it mechanically with three orthogonal
microfabricated cantilever mechanical accelerometers.
Hence, a "spinning" wheel can be thought of at rest,
with the centrifugal forces on it being created by motion of the matter
beyond it.
[snip crap]
Poison the well and every sip is tainted. Hey stooopid - it cannot be
gravitation because time passage would be altered. It cannot be
inertia because acceleration is an absolute measurement in hermetic
isolation. Acceleration is a local property. It cannot be anything
else because we've come to the end of the list.
Uh, Al, I thought you were supposed to be smart, especially considering your
provenence (Group 233 for me, whatever for you.) I can't imagine how you
could miss, that I didn't say I agreed with the GR concept that I was merely
describing - I was presenting what the pop relativity writers usually say,
and indeed was giving one form of refutation myself. I have noticed this odd
failure to note presence of the reductio in other commentary lately, and I
don't know why so many have become sloppy about it.
A decent refutation of pan-relativism?
How will you spin the universe to have consistency among three
orthogonal spinning wheels?
Idiot.
It's not my problem anyway, silly. If you think you really have a good point
yourself, then take it out there.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Rotation is not relative, since it creates relatively real linear velocities |
13 Jun 2007 12:12:38 AM |
|
|
On 2007-06-12, Neil Bates <neil_delver@caloricmail.com> wrote:
Thoroughgoing Machian GR says that *all* motion is relative, even
accelerated motion. Hence, a "spinning" wheel can be thought of at rest,
with the centrifugal forces on it being created by motion of the matter
beyond it. (Actually, not in the same sense as when charges start to
accelerate at a distance, for then there would be a time delay..) But assume
that at least linear motion is relative and real to that extent. Then, since
relative linear motions are "real" they can be used to make distinctions
between situations. Consider that a rotating body has actual relative
velocity vectors of parts of itself relative to any given other part! (For
example, each other point (if v << c) moves at v = -R cross omega,
where R is the connecting separation and not r of a circle etc.)
The magnitudes depend on omega, which is thus real per that consideration
(which does not invoke any mechanical or inertial effects.) I know,
rotation itself redefines that perhaps, but just taking the bare idea of
"relative velocity" and applying it to rotation, yields this result.
A paradox of understanding? A decent refutation of pan-relativism?
What say you?
I say, write down an equation that replaces all of the ambiguous
verbiage in the above with something that states clearly and concisely
whatever physical content the above is supposed to contain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Bates" |
|
| Title: Re: Rotation is not relative, since it creates relatively real linear velocities |
13 Jun 2007 06:50:48 PM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.sz> wrote in message
news:slrnf6uv6q.van.dubious@iris.lebesque-al.net...
On 2007-06-12, Neil Bates <neil_delver@caloricmail.com> wrote:
Thoroughgoing Machian GR says that *all* motion is relative, even
accelerated motion. Hence, a "spinning" wheel can be thought of at rest,
with the centrifugal forces on it being created by motion of the matter
beyond it. (Actually, not in the same sense as when charges start to
accelerate at a distance, for then there would be a time delay..) But
assume
that at least linear motion is relative and real to that extent. Then,
since
relative linear motions are "real" they can be used to make distinctions
between situations. Consider that a rotating body has actual relative
velocity vectors of parts of itself relative to any given other part!
(For
example, each other point (if v << c) moves at v = -R cross omega,
where R is the connecting separation and not r of a circle etc.)
The magnitudes depend on omega, which is thus real per that consideration
(which does not invoke any mechanical or inertial effects.) I know,
rotation itself redefines that perhaps, but just taking the bare idea of
"relative velocity" and applying it to rotation, yields this result.
A paradox of understanding? A decent refutation of pan-relativism?
What say you?
I say, write down an equation that replaces all of the ambiguous
verbiage in the above with something that states clearly and concisely
whatever physical content the above is supposed to contain.
I already did, so the "ambiguous verbiage" above was not covering over, but
framing the background to, the core point: The relative velocities between
points in a rotating body are given (if v << c) by v = -R cross omega, where
R is the separation to the other point. Therefore, it is really rotating
since that makes for a way to distinguish it from bodies in other states of
rotation (or not at all) without recourse to inertial issues. That shouldn't
have been hard to gather.
There is no way to completely avoid so-called ambiguous verbiage, since
there are arguments about how to frame the issue. I can't help that. BTW,
could we talk about quantum mechanics, general relativity, etc., in all
respects, without any use of "ambiguous verbiage"? Give me the honest
answer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
