| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Spaceman" |
| Date: |
09 Feb 2006 04:23:46 PM |
| Object: |
Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
(repaired version thanks to OG)
Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
as far as we know infinite in length and width.
We mark a line and call it the 0 point.
we then mark lines that are 1 mile away from
this 0 point so we will have parallel lines every 1 mile.
An observer stays at the 0 point (A)
a second observer is in a spaceship (B)
traveling at at .5c and the clock that is
at the 0 point(A) starts when it (B) passes the 0 point.
According to basic math and the clock at observer (A)
position, the object will pass by the 93,000th line in 1 second.
and the 186,000th line in 2 seconds
etc...
(silly basic math)
:)
so...
( I think it is all stated correctly this time..)
How many lines would (B) pass if using time dilation
as a physical fact for (B) according to SR.
:)
.
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
09 Feb 2006 05:21:53 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:aPadnT76BIN5XXbeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
(repaired version thanks to OG)
Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
as far as we know infinite in length and width.
We mark a line and call it the 0 point.
we then mark lines that are 1 mile away from
this 0 point so we will have parallel lines every 1 mile.
An observer stays at the 0 point (A)
a second observer is in a spaceship (B)
traveling at at .5c and the clock that is
at the 0 point(A) starts when it (B) passes the 0 point.
According to basic math and the clock at observer (A)
position, the object will pass by the 93,000th line in 1 second.
and the 186,000th line in 2 seconds
etc...
(silly basic math)
:)
so...
( I think it is all stated correctly this time..)
How many lines would (B) pass if using time dilation
as a physical fact for (B) according to SR.
:)
in 1 second - it would pass 93000 lines - however the observer in (B)
wouldn't agree that the lines are 1 mile apart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
09 Feb 2006 05:31:32 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:45214kF4ihdtU1@individual.net...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| news:aPadnT76BIN5XXbeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
| > (repaired version thanks to OG)
| > Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
| > as far as we know infinite in length and width.
| >
| > We mark a line and call it the 0 point.
| > we then mark lines that are 1 mile away from
| > this 0 point so we will have parallel lines every 1 mile.
| >
| > An observer stays at the 0 point (A)
| > a second observer is in a spaceship (B)
| > traveling at at .5c and the clock that is
| > at the 0 point(A) starts when it (B) passes the 0 point.
| > According to basic math and the clock at observer (A)
| > position, the object will pass by the 93,000th line in 1 second.
| > and the 186,000th line in 2 seconds
| > etc...
| > (silly basic math)
| > :)
| > so...
| >
| > ( I think it is all stated correctly this time..)
| > How many lines would (B) pass if using time dilation
| > as a physical fact for (B) according to SR.
| > :)
|
| in 1 second - it would pass 93000 lines - however the observer in (B)
| wouldn't agree that the lines are 1 mile apart.
(they are physically 1 mile apart)
Please explain why observer (B) would not say such?
What physical evidence would (B) have to prove they are not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
09 Feb 2006 05:57:31 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:2rGdnXNRi61bTXbeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:45214kF4ihdtU1@individual.net...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| news:aPadnT76BIN5XXbeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
| > (repaired version thanks to OG)
| > Lets suppose we have a flat surface that is
| > as far as we know infinite in length and width.
| >
| > We mark a line and call it the 0 point.
| > we then mark lines that are 1 mile away from
| > this 0 point so we will have parallel lines every 1 mile.
| >
| > An observer stays at the 0 point (A)
| > a second observer is in a spaceship (B)
| > traveling at at .5c and the clock that is
| > at the 0 point(A) starts when it (B) passes the 0 point.
| > According to basic math and the clock at observer (A)
| > position, the object will pass by the 93,000th line in 1 second.
| > and the 186,000th line in 2 seconds
| > etc...
| > (silly basic math)
| > :)
| > so...
| >
| > ( I think it is all stated correctly this time..)
| > How many lines would (B) pass if using time dilation
| > as a physical fact for (B) according to SR.
| > :)
|
| in 1 second - it would pass 93000 lines - however the observer in (B)
| wouldn't agree that the lines are 1 mile apart.
(they are physically 1 mile apart)
Please explain why observer (B) would not say such?
What physical evidence would (B) have to prove they are not?
You need to ask HOW observer (B) would measure the separation between the
lines. Think of this as a real practical problem. How would YOU do it?
When you have thought of a method, you then need to remember that sucessive
lines will be moving relative to the observer (B) with a speed of .5c - this
inevitably affects the measurement of the separation between the lines.
OG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
09 Feb 2006 06:19:01 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:45237eF4anblU1@individual.net...
| You need to ask HOW observer (B) would measure the separation between the
| lines. Think of this as a real practical problem. How would YOU do it?
|
| When you have thought of a method, you then need to remember that
sucessive
| lines will be moving relative to the observer (B) with a speed of .5c -
this
| inevitably affects the measurement of the separation between the lines.
You stated " however the observer in (B)
wouldn't agree that the lines are 1 mile apart."
I did not make that statement, you did.
so...
It is you that should give a reason for such.
If I were trying to "physically measure" something like such
I would turn around and stop the ship and physically measure
it in reality, so I would not have any problems
with the measurement being a "non physical" abstraction instead
that could be wrong compared to the physical reality of the
physical measurement.
I want to hear "your version" of why observer (B)
would not agree to the lines being 1 mile apart
since you stated such.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
09 Feb 2006 06:43:15 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:T7-dndNKcNt1RnbenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:45237eF4anblU1@individual.net...
| You need to ask HOW observer (B) would measure the separation between
the
| lines. Think of this as a real practical problem. How would YOU do it?
|
| When you have thought of a method, you then need to remember that
sucessive
| lines will be moving relative to the observer (B) with a speed of .5c -
this
| inevitably affects the measurement of the separation between the lines.
You stated " however the observer in (B)
wouldn't agree that the lines are 1 mile apart."
I did not make that statement, you did.
so...
It is you that should give a reason for such.
What makes you think that observer (B) would measure the same as observer
(A). He's not in the same coordinate frame at all is he?
If I were trying to "physically measure" something like such
I would turn around and stop the ship and physically measure
it in reality, so I would not have any problems
with the measurement being a "non physical" abstraction instead
that could be wrong compared to the physical reality of the
physical measurement.
Ah, but your measurement would not be made by observer (B), would it? After
all, while you have stopped, gone back and measured the separation between
two successive lines, maybe double checked them etc etc, observer (B) has
whistled off into the distance at a speed of .5c. Not the same thing at all
is it? Again, by stopping to measure the distances, you are removing (B)'s
involvement in the measurement.
I want to hear "your version" of why observer (B)
would not agree to the lines being 1 mile apart
since you stated such.
Of course,
The reason that (B) does not agree is because when you have one coordinate
frame moving relative to another, distance measurements made in one frame
are contracted relative to the measurements made in the other.
Since distance measurements in ANY coordinate frame depends on information
travelling between successive lines, the speed of light is an important
factor.
When you have two coordinate frames moving relative to each other, the ratio
of <relative speed>:<light speed> is important.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
09 Feb 2006 06:54:04 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4525t5F4irvpU1@individual.net...
| What makes you think that observer (B) would measure the same as observer
| (A). He's not in the same coordinate frame at all is he?
He is passing by the same coordinate frame as the guy that
measured the lines physically and marked them.
| Ah, but your measurement would not be made by observer (B), would it?
After
| all, while you have stopped, gone back and measured the separation between
| two successive lines, maybe double checked them etc etc, observer (B) has
| whistled off into the distance at a speed of .5c. Not the same thing at
all
| is it? Again, by stopping to measure the distances, you are removing (B)'s
| involvement in the measurement.
No,
I am simply making sure I am getting a physical measurement.
| The reason that (B) does not agree is because when you have one coordinate
| frame moving relative to another, distance measurements made in one frame
| are contracted relative to the measurements made in the other.
I do not.
I have an observer (B) moving through a coordinate frame that
observer (A) is in hence it is simply the same frame.
(one is moving through it, the other one stays in it.)
and..
distance does not contract ever.
where are you getting such ***** from?
| Since distance measurements in ANY coordinate frame depends on information
| travelling between successive lines, the speed of light is an important
| factor.
No.
the speed of light is irrelevant here.
we are only talking about passing lines on the ground
at certain speeds.
| When you have two coordinate frames moving relative to each other, the
ratio
| of <relative speed>:<light speed> is important.
What the heck does lightspeed have to do with an objects speed?
that is so full of crap it is amazing anyone still falls for such crap.
Poor OG, I hope you are not brainwashed beyond help.
OG,
Do you actually think the meter being equal to a speed
is a good standard?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
10 Feb 2006 04:08:04 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:mMednT3D44WDeXbeRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4525t5F4irvpU1@individual.net...
| What makes you think that observer (B) would measure the same as
observer
| (A). He's not in the same coordinate frame at all is he?
He is passing by the same coordinate frame as the guy that
measured the lines physically and marked them.
| Ah, but your measurement would not be made by observer (B), would it?
After
| all, while you have stopped, gone back and measured the separation
between
| two successive lines, maybe double checked them etc etc, observer (B)
has
| whistled off into the distance at a speed of .5c. Not the same thing at
all
| is it? Again, by stopping to measure the distances, you are removing
(B)'s
| involvement in the measurement.
No,
I am simply making sure I am getting a physical measurement.
But you seem to say that in order that you can measure the distance between
the lines you have to stop moving relative to the lines.
| The reason that (B) does not agree is because when you have one
coordinate
| frame moving relative to another, distance measurements made in one
frame
| are contracted relative to the measurements made in the other.
I do not.
I have an observer (B) moving through a coordinate frame that
observer (A) is in hence it is simply the same frame.
(one is moving through it, the other one stays in it.)
and..
distance does not contract ever.
where are you getting such ***** from?
I think it's now time that we go back to the question I asked in one of my
original responses:-
How would (B) measure the separation of the lines whilst they are whipping
past at .5c ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
10 Feb 2006 04:21:22 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:454h66F4u3ljU1@individual.net...
| But you seem to say that in order that you can measure the distance
between
| the lines you have to stop moving relative to the lines.
To physically measure such, yes.
and if you are going to use an abstract measurement,
you should not be using an abstract measurement that lost
all physical measurements now, such as the meter has.
this sad length contraction crap is only proof
that lightspeed is not "constant to all"
and the distance being different to a moving observer
compared to an "at rest" observer is proof you have a
problem with the new "standard" of a meter.
(you should not need transformations to measure stuff.)
If the ship is passing by 186,000 miles per second.
then that is what it is doing,
If you have some crap that comes up with it is not doing such,
your crap is broken in some form of it's abstraction of
the speed.
| I think it's now time that we go back to the question I asked in one of my
| original responses:-
| How would (B) measure the separation of the lines whilst they are whipping
| past at .5c ?
Ok,
more gedanken stuff here so bear with it.
If a wheel was placed on the gedanken ground we
created, and it was 1 mile in circumference,
(1 roll per line)
would it not spin at 93,000 rotations per second
if traveling at 0.5c past such lines?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
10 Feb 2006 04:39:53 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:YOednYECd7Z9jHDenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:454h66F4u3ljU1@individual.net...
| But you seem to say that in order that you can measure the distance
between
| the lines you have to stop moving relative to the lines.
To physically measure such, yes.
Note that James refuses to define "physically measure"
and explain how it is fundamentally different from any
other type of measurement (hint: there really are no
different kinds).
[snip]
| I think it's now time that we go back to the question I asked in one of my
| original responses:-
| How would (B) measure the separation of the lines whilst they are whipping
| past at .5c ?
Ok,
more gedanken stuff here so bear with it.
If a wheel was placed on the gedanken ground we
created, and it was 1 mile in circumference,
(1 roll per line)
would it not spin at 93,000 rotations per second
if traveling at 0.5c past such lines?
If all measurements are taken in the rest frame
of the lines, then yes, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
10 Feb 2006 05:14:53 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:sD8Hf.41795$1e5.818288@news20.bellglobal.com...
| If all measurements are taken in the rest frame
| of the lines, then yes, of course.
The observer at the "rest frame" is telling
the in flight guy that he is physically passing 93000
lines in 1 second.
Why doesn't the in flight guy believe him?
What makes the guy in flights measurement
a physical measurement at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
11 Feb 2006 10:13:51 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:Sv2dnXvMZebzg3DeRVn-rg@comcast.com...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:sD8Hf.41795$1e5.818288@news20.bellglobal.com...
| If all measurements are taken in the rest frame
| of the lines, then yes, of course.
The observer at the "rest frame" is telling
the in flight guy that he is physically passing 93000
lines in 1 second.
Which would confirm what the in-flight guy would
deduce using the appropriate transofroms on his own
measured data what the rest frame guy would see in
his frame.
Why doesn't the in flight guy believe him?
He does, because he knows relativity and how to
properly convert measurements taken in one frame
to the perspective of another.
What makes the guy in flights measurement
a physical measurement at all?
Because it is performed using physical instruments
just the way it would be on a body at rest in his
frame. There are any number of ways to contrive
a situation where the measurement methods are
essentially identical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
11 Feb 2006 10:40:15 AM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:D2oHf.45954$1e5.928449@news20.bellglobal.com...
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Sv2dnXvMZebzg3DeRVn-rg@comcast.com...
| >
| > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
| > news:sD8Hf.41795$1e5.818288@news20.bellglobal.com...
| > | If all measurements are taken in the rest frame
| > | of the lines, then yes, of course.
| >
| > The observer at the "rest frame" is telling
| > the in flight guy that he is physically passing 93000
| > lines in 1 second.
|
| Which would confirm what the in-flight guy would
| deduce using the appropriate transofroms on his own
| measured data what the rest frame guy would see in
| his frame.
LOL
what a bunch of crock.
<snipped crock of bologna>
So Greg,
How does the radius of a big wheel with a 1 mile
cicumference rolling along those lines at 93,000
lines per second change itself to allow the supposed
contraction of the circumference?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
11 Feb 2006 12:51:59 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message news:T46dnXdWFrXxjnPeRVn-gg@comcast.com...
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:D2oHf.45954$1e5.928449@news20.bellglobal.com...
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Sv2dnXvMZebzg3DeRVn-rg@comcast.com...
| >
| > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
| > news:sD8Hf.41795$1e5.818288@news20.bellglobal.com...
| > | If all measurements are taken in the rest frame
| > | of the lines, then yes, of course.
| >
| > The observer at the "rest frame" is telling
| > the in flight guy that he is physically passing 93000
| > lines in 1 second.
|
| Which would confirm what the in-flight guy would
| deduce using the appropriate transofroms on his own
| measured data what the rest frame guy would see in
| his frame.
LOL
what a bunch of crock.
<snipped crock of bologna>
So Greg,
How does the radius of a big wheel with a 1 mile
cicumference rolling along those lines at 93,000
lines per second change itself to allow the supposed
contraction of the circumference?
Length dilation is along the direction of
motion. An observer would see a foreshortened
wheel, apparently elliptical, with the height
remaining the same but the width contracted.
If the wheel were stationary its diameter would
be measured to be D = Circumference/pi = (1 mile)/pi.
The wheel is doing 0.5c linearly, so it's front to
back diameter (minor axis) is D*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Its height remains unchanged.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
11 Feb 2006 01:28:59 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:UmqHf.47377$1e5.963211@news20.bellglobal.com...
| Length dilation is along the direction of
| motion.
The radius is going to change because the direction of motion
is the same as the radius?
LOL
| An observer would see a foreshortened
| wheel, apparently elliptical, with the height
| remaining the same but the width contracted.
Would see?
LOL
Would not be real though. (optical illusions are what
"would see" are.
Would see's are nothing more than optical illusion.
| If the wheel were stationary its diameter would
| be measured to be D = Circumference/pi = (1 mile)/pi.
The same is true while in motion,
You have a problem there..
LOL
| The wheel is doing 0.5c linearly, so it's front to
| back diameter (minor axis) is D*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
| Its height remains unchanged.
Wrong.
The wheel does no such thing.
A Wheel can not change diameter in one plane only.
You are again stuck in rubber ruler/observational illusion land.
LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
10 Feb 2006 04:48:51 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:YOednYECd7Z9jHDenZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:454h66F4u3ljU1@individual.net...
| But you seem to say that in order that you can measure the distance
between
| the lines you have to stop moving relative to the lines.
To physically measure such, yes.
and if you are going to use an abstract measurement,
you should not be using an abstract measurement that lost
all physical measurements now, such as the meter has.
this sad length contraction crap is only proof
that lightspeed is not "constant to all"
and the distance being different to a moving observer
compared to an "at rest" observer is proof you have a
problem with the new "standard" of a meter.
(you should not need transformations to measure stuff.)
If the ship is passing by 186,000 miles per second.
then that is what it is doing,
If you have some crap that comes up with it is not doing such,
your crap is broken in some form of it's abstraction of
the speed.
You say "you should not need transformations to measure stuff.", and indeed
you don't need transformations to measure stuff. What you do need is
transformations to take measurements in one reference frame (B) and express
them in another reference frame (A). Measurement isn't a problem so long as
you stick to the same frame of reference.
| I think it's now time that we go back to the question I asked in one of
my
| original responses:-
| How would (B) measure the separation of the lines whilst they are
whipping
| past at .5c ?
Ok,
more gedanken stuff here so bear with it.
If a wheel was placed on the gedanken ground we
created, and it was 1 mile in circumference,
(1 roll per line)
would it not spin at 93,000 rotations per second
if traveling at 0.5c past such lines?
You won't want to hear this, but if the wheel is spinning at that speed, (B)
would find that the diameter is no longer 1/2pi miles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
10 Feb 2006 05:06:55 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:454jilF4vhbtU1@individual.net...
| You say "you should not need transformations to measure stuff.", and
indeed
| you don't need transformations to measure stuff. What you do need is
| transformations to take measurements in one reference frame (B) and
express
| them in another reference frame (A). Measurement isn't a problem so long
as
| you stick to the same frame of reference.
If you need transformations to express measurements in
another frame, you are truly lost in the abstract world.
but lets look at your shrinking wheel problem below.
and of course, you will have to do the math since I
refuse to tranform miles into
"shorter distances than miles simply because of motion"
so have a real go at it if you dare and we can see
what happens to your "mile" compared to my mile.
| You won't want to hear this, but if the wheel is spinning at that speed,
(B)
| would find that the diameter is no longer 1/2pi miles.
The 1 mile circumference wheel spinning at 93,000 rpms?
What is the "new circumference" you have figured for this wheel?
in other words..
How much does this single mile shrink from such a speed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
11 Feb 2006 04:49:45 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:TLednZA0KfkQgXDenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:454jilF4vhbtU1@individual.net...
| You say "you should not need transformations to measure stuff.", and
indeed
| you don't need transformations to measure stuff. What you do need is
| transformations to take measurements in one reference frame (B) and
express
| them in another reference frame (A). Measurement isn't a problem so long
as
| you stick to the same frame of reference.
If you need transformations to express measurements in
another frame, you are truly lost in the abstract world.
That is the sort of unthinking presupposition that is holding you back. You
know that the frames of reference of (A) and (B) are different, so you know
that at least one transformation is necessary (in this case subtracting 0.5c
from the velocity). What you have done is assume that that is the ONLY
transformation needed. You've oversimplified the problem.
but lets look at your shrinking wheel problem below.
and of course, you will have to do the math since I
refuse to tranform miles into
"shorter distances than miles simply because of motion"
so have a real go at it if you dare and we can see
what happens to your "mile" compared to my mile.
| You won't want to hear this, but if the wheel is spinning at that speed,
(B)
| would find that the diameter is no longer 1/2pi miles.
The 1 mile circumference wheel spinning at 93,000 rpms?
What is the "new circumference" you have figured for this wheel?
in other words..
How much does this single mile shrink from such a speed?
Mea Culpa, I mis-remembered an article I read from 1977.
Having checked back, the radius of the wheel remains unchanged, but the
circumference is no longer given by 2 * pi * r when the wheel is rotating at
high enough rates. The relation between the radius of the wheel and the
circumference is similar to the length of one of the lines of longitude as
you move away from the North Pole - initially, the circumference of a
circle around the N Pole is given by 2 * pi * r, but as the radius increases
the curvature of the earth reduces the length of the circumference relative
to the 'expected' result.
I don't have time to re-research the article now, but there is a 57 page
summary of "Space geometry in rotating reference frames " at
http://freeweb.supereva.com/solciclos/gron_d.pdf if you are interested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
11 Feb 2006 09:58:24 AM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:455tq2F535bmU1@individual.net...
| That is the sort of unthinking presupposition that is holding you back.
You
| know that the frames of reference of (A) and (B) are different, so you
know
| that at least one transformation is necessary (in this case subtracting
0.5c
| from the velocity). What you have done is assume that that is the ONLY
| transformation needed. You've oversimplified the problem.
That is the sort of thinking that is holding you back, no I.
I am not assuming anything, it is you that assumes a transformation
is needed simply because you were brainwashed into thinking so.
..
| Mea Culpa, I mis-remembered an article I read from 1977.
| Having checked back, the radius of the wheel remains unchanged, but the
| circumference is no longer given by 2 * pi * r when the wheel is rotating
at
| high enough rates. The relation between the radius of the wheel and the
| circumference is similar to the length of one of the lines of longitude as
| you move away from the North Pole - initially, the circumference of a
| circle around the N Pole is given by 2 * pi * r, but as the radius
increases
| the curvature of the earth reduces the length of the circumference
relative
| to the 'expected' result.
Completely wrong bologna.
The radius can not "change" at all since it is not moving in the direction
of rotation.
Try to think about my can rolling on a train thread.
If you try hard enough, you can break the brainwashing you had
to accept to pass in school for such classes.
|
| I don't have time to re-research the article now, but there is a 57 page
| summary of "Space geometry in rotating reference frames " at
| http://freeweb.supereva.com/solciclos/gron_d.pdf if you are interested.
More mumbo jumbo based upon a brainwashed idea.
If you are interested in advancing physics, I suggest you stop reading such
crap and actually think for yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
11 Feb 2006 05:35:27 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:yuadnV2pzskAlHPeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:455tq2F535bmU1@individual.net...
| That is the sort of unthinking presupposition that is holding you back.
You
| know that the frames of reference of (A) and (B) are different, so you
know
| that at least one transformation is necessary (in this case subtracting
0.5c
| from the velocity). What you have done is assume that that is the ONLY
| transformation needed. You've oversimplified the problem.
That is the sort of thinking that is holding you back, no I.
I am not assuming anything, it is you that assumes a transformation
is needed simply because you were brainwashed into thinking so.
If you are claiming that (A) and (B) don't need a transformation to express
a measurement in each other's frame you are claiming that both (A) and (B)
measure lines passing at the same speed !
| Mea Culpa, I mis-remembered an article I read from 1977.
| Having checked back, the radius of the wheel remains unchanged, but the
| circumference is no longer given by 2 * pi * r when the wheel is
rotating
at
| high enough rates. The relation between the radius of the wheel and the
| circumference is similar to the length of one of the lines of longitude
as
| you move away from the North Pole - initially, the circumference of a
| circle around the N Pole is given by 2 * pi * r, but as the radius
increases
| the curvature of the earth reduces the length of the circumference
relative
| to the 'expected' result.
Completely wrong bologna.
The radius can not "change" at all since it is not moving in the direction
of rotation.
Yes, you are right, as I explained - the radius doesn't change, it's the
circumference that is less than 2*pi*r when the wheel is rotating at ultra
high rates.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 02:16:28 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459j32F5ksdqU1@individual.net...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| news:yuadnV2pzskAlHPeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
| >
| > "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
| > news:455tq2F535bmU1@individual.net...
| > | That is the sort of unthinking presupposition that is holding you
back.
| > You
| > | know that the frames of reference of (A) and (B) are different, so you
| > know
| > | that at least one transformation is necessary (in this case
subtracting
| > 0.5c
| > | from the velocity). What you have done is assume that that is the ONLY
| > | transformation needed. You've oversimplified the problem.
| >
| > That is the sort of thinking that is holding you back, no I.
| > I am not assuming anything, it is you that assumes a transformation
| > is needed simply because you were brainwashed into thinking so.
|
| If you are claiming that (A) and (B) don't need a transformation to
express
| a measurement in each other's frame you are claiming that both (A) and (B)
| measure lines passing at the same speed !
No,
I am claiming that (A) will measure (B) passing the lines and
that (B) will measure the same as (A) if he is actually
measuring using a correct method to measure such at all.
| >
| > Completely wrong bologna.
| > The radius can not "change" at all since it is not moving in the
direction
| > of rotation.
|
| Yes, you are right, as I explained - the radius doesn't change, it's the
| circumference that is less than 2*pi*r when the wheel is rotating at ultra
| high rates.
That would mean the radius has changed.
You just don't get it huh?
You have been brainwashed.
If you actually try hard enough. such brainwashing can be broken
and you can come back to the "real" world, otherwise
you will be stuck in the rubber ruler world forever.
I actually do hope you could leave such a closed box world,
and enter the "out of the box" reality that is much more
larger than you could ever think while being in the box.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 02:23:36 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:l9CdnfO3ffkACnLeRVn-pw@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459j32F5ksdqU1@individual.net...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| news:yuadnV2pzskAlHPeRVn-hA@comcast.com...
| >
| > "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
| > news:455tq2F535bmU1@individual.net...
| > | That is the sort of unthinking presupposition that is holding you
back.
| > You
| > | know that the frames of reference of (A) and (B) are different, so
you
| > know
| > | that at least one transformation is necessary (in this case
subtracting
| > 0.5c
| > | from the velocity). What you have done is assume that that is the
ONLY
| > | transformation needed. You've oversimplified the problem.
| >
| > That is the sort of thinking that is holding you back, no I.
| > I am not assuming anything, it is you that assumes a transformation
| > is needed simply because you were brainwashed into thinking so.
|
| If you are claiming that (A) and (B) don't need a transformation to
express
| a measurement in each other's frame you are claiming that both (A) and
(B)
| measure lines passing at the same speed !
No,
I am claiming that (A) will measure (B) passing the lines and
that (B) will measure the same as (A) if he is actually
measuring using a correct method to measure such at all.
But (A) measures the speed of the lines as zero, whereas (B) measures the
speed of the lines as .5c, therefore there has to be a transformation for
the speed. Agreed?
| >
| > Completely wrong bologna.
| > The radius can not "change" at all since it is not moving in the
direction
| > of rotation.
|
| Yes, you are right, as I explained - the radius doesn't change, it's the
| circumference that is less than 2*pi*r when the wheel is rotating at
ultra
| high rates.
That would mean the radius has changed.
Why ? How do you know that the circumference remains at 2*pi*r for high
rotation speeds?
You just don't get it huh?
You have been brainwashed.
If you actually try hard enough. such brainwashing can be broken
and you can come back to the "real" world, otherwise
you will be stuck in the rubber ruler world forever.
I actually do hope you could leave such a closed box world,
and enter the "out of the box" reality that is much more
larger than you could ever think while being in the box.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 02:31:44 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459jq1F5meenU1@individual.net...
| But (A) measures the speed of the lines as zero, whereas (B) measures the
| speed of the lines as .5c, therefore there has to be a transformation for
| the speed. Agreed?
No,
no tranformation is needed.
(A) is not measuring the speed of the lines themselves,
(A) is measuring the speed of (B) with WRT the lines.
(B) is measuring the speed he is passing the lines.
and if he measures correctly, he should simply get
(A) measurement of he has measured incorrectly.
| Why ? How do you know that the circumference remains at 2*pi*r for high
| rotation speeds?
Because speeds changing reality is complete joke.
and if any difference in the circumference occurs at all
the "mean" radius would also be different and that is a joke
that such can be caused by speed alone (barring medium causes)
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 02:42:52 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:-MKdnfxWgJuxBnLenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459jq1F5meenU1@individual.net...
| But (A) measures the speed of the lines as zero, whereas (B) measures
the
| speed of the lines as .5c, therefore there has to be a transformation
for
| the speed. Agreed?
No,
no tranformation is needed.
(A) is not measuring the speed of the lines themselves,
(A) is measuring the speed of (B) with WRT the lines.
(B) is measuring the speed he is passing the lines.
and if he measures correctly, he should simply get
(A) measurement of he has measured incorrectly.
Hang on, let us suppose that (A) and (B) both want to measure the speed of
the lines. In that case do you agree that there is the need for a
transformation between the measurements of (A) and (B)?
| Why ? How do you know that the circumference remains at 2*pi*r for high
| rotation speeds?
Because speeds changing reality is complete joke.
That of course is a big assumption, isn't it?
and if any difference in the circumference occurs at all
the "mean" radius would also be different and that is a joke
that such can be caused by speed alone (barring medium causes)
So how do we know which measurements are 'reality' then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 02:48:01 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459ku3F5lh7nU1@individual.net...
| Hang on, let us suppose that (A) and (B) both want to measure the speed of
| the lines. In that case do you agree that there is the need for a
| transformation between the measurements of (A) and (B)?
Why would a transformation be needed at all?
(A) would measure 0 WRT to himself
(B) would measure 0.5c wrt to himself.
what transformation is needed at all?
They are relative speeds.
relative speeds can be different and need no transformation
at all.
| That of course is a big assumption, isn't it?
No,
Length changing at all is the big assumption.
| So how do we know which measurements are 'reality' then?
The physical measurement is the reality.
the abstract measurement (if disagreeing with reality)
was measured wrong to begin with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 03:44:29 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Ad2dneQAhfxhA3LeRVn-qw@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459ku3F5lh7nU1@individual.net...
| Hang on, let us suppose that (A) and (B) both want to measure the speed
of
| the lines. In that case do you agree that there is the need for a
| transformation between the measurements of (A) and (B)?
Why would a transformation be needed at all?
(A) would measure 0 WRT to himself
(B) would measure 0.5c wrt to himself.
what transformation is needed at all?
They are relative speeds.
relative speeds can be different and need no transformation
at all.
The relative speed IS the transformation for the speeds between the two
frames. That's what a transformation is.
| That of course is a big assumption, isn't it?
No,
Length changing at all is the big assumption.
| So how do we know which measurements are 'reality' then?
The physical measurement is the reality.
the abstract measurement (if disagreeing with reality)
was measured wrong to begin with.
But (A) and (B) each make physical measurements for the separation between
the lines.
(A) has a perfectly valid means of physically measuring the separation and
measures at 1 mile separation
(B) has a perfectly valid means of physically measuring the separation
andmeasures at 0.87 miles separation.
Who is to say which one is right or wrong?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 03:54:57 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459oi0F5lehjU1@individual.net...
| The relative speed IS the transformation for the speeds between the two
| frames. That's what a transformation is.
So in your rubber ruler world.
You need to transform speeds between two frames?
There is not transformation needed.
| But (A) and (B) each make physical measurements for the separation between
| the lines.
No,
(A) made a physical measurement,
(B) can only make an abstract measurement.
| (A) has a perfectly valid means of physically measuring the separation and
| measures at 1 mile separation
| (B) has a perfectly valid means of physically measuring the separation
| andmeasures at 0.87 miles separation.
No, (B) has no perfect valid "physical" measurement at all.
It has an abstract method and if such abstract method does
not show the same as a true "physical" measurement does,
then there is something wrong with your "abstracting" method.
| Who is to say which one is right or wrong?
The physical is correct, the abstract has problems unless
it matches the physical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 04:10:07 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnag97PwwM3LeRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459oi0F5lehjU1@individual.net...
| The relative speed IS the transformation for the speeds between the two
| frames. That's what a transformation is.
So in your rubber ruler world.
You need to transform speeds between two frames?
There is not transformation needed.
Of course you need to transform speed between the two frames, otherwise they
would be THE SAME SPEED.
How simple is this ?
| But (A) and (B) each make physical measurements for the separation
between
| the lines.
No,
(A) made a physical measurement,
(B) can only make an abstract measurement.
| (A) has a perfectly valid means of physically measuring the separation
and
| measures at 1 mile separation
| (B) has a perfectly valid means of physically measuring the separation
| andmeasures at 0.87 miles separation.
No, (B) has no perfect valid "physical" measurement at all.
It has an abstract method and if such abstract method does
not show the same as a true "physical" measurement does,
then there is something wrong with your "abstracting" method.
Oh go on then tell me how (A) can measure the seperation between two lines
without moving.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 04:11:05 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459q21F5n0gaU1@individual.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Mp-dnag97PwwM3LeRVn-sA@comcast.com...
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459oi0F5lehjU1@individual.net...
| The relative speed IS the transformation for the speeds between the two
| frames. That's what a transformation is.
So in your rubber ruler world.
You need to transform speeds between two frames?
There is not transformation needed.
Of course you need to transform speed between the two frames, otherwise
they would be THE SAME SPEED.
How simple is this ?
| But (A) and (B) each make physical measurements for the separation
between
| the lines.
No,
(A) made a physical measurement,
(B) can only make an abstract measurement.
| (A) has a perfectly valid means of physically measuring the separation
and
| measures at 1 mile separation
| (B) has a perfectly valid means of physically measuring the separation
| andmeasures at 0.87 miles separation.
No, (B) has no perfect valid "physical" measurement at all.
It has an abstract method and if such abstract method does
not show the same as a true "physical" measurement does,
then there is something wrong with your "abstracting" method.
Oh go on then tell me how (A) can measure the seperation between two lines
without moving.
or haiving some other 'proxy' movement on (A)s behalf .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 04:20:10 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459q3sF5j5laU1@individual.net...
| or haiving some other 'proxy' movement on (A)s behalf .
The physical reality of the measurement is that he used
a physical object to determine it's measurement.
If you yourself used a meter stick and measured out
100 meters and checked yourself 20 times to make
sure you did so correctly, and then someone came along with a
Radio Shack laser measurement tool, and found you to be wrong.
would you just accept it?
Or would you maybe question the "abstract measurement that
the device came up with?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099 |
12 Feb 2006 04:17:07 PM |
|
|
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:459q21F5n0gaU1@individual.net...
|
| "Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
| news:Mp-dnag97PwwM3LeRVn-sA@comcast.com...
| >
| > "OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
| > news:459oi0F5lehjU1@individual.net...
| > | The relative speed IS the transformation for the speeds between the
two
| > | frames. That's what a transformation is.
| >
| > So in your rubber ruler world.
| > You need to transform speeds between two frames?
| > There is not transformation needed.
|
| Of course you need to transform speed between the two frames, otherwise
they
| would be THE SAME SPEED.
How the hell do you get such crap?
They need no tranform ***** to be 2 different speeds.
| How simple is this ?
It is not simple, it is completely moronic.
| Oh go on then tell me how (A) can measure the seperation between two lines
| without moving.
He did not do such,
He had to move to measure but only to make sure
one side was the 0 and the other side was the measurement itself.
Then once he finds such a physical measurement
he needs not move again.
How do you explain that a faster motion should not
get the same type of measurement?
You are stating the faster my car goes, the more incorrect
the speedometer is.
It is a joke that you just refuse to get.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
