Got it Everneo, ANS:I got it now. I have used the quote system here before but my site doesn't have it an I am used to typing in
Re: Opposite But it doesn't. His "locally flat" gravitational field is the the same as my "uniform" field.
Correct Janus58, Correct but in his original question he simply stated that the situation was the same as standing the rocket in a gravitational field - He didn't specify a flat field until I questioned that point.
Hot Water ryans, ANS: No, actually I think you like to changes subjects if the water gets to hot. Now do you agree with Brian Greene's statement in "The Elegant Universe" regarding the different computed Pi because the ruler shrinks due to the perpeheral velocity of one measurement and the radial measurement remains constant.?
Yes, but I interpret in a totally different way that you do. Do the calculation, it will take about 2 minutes. From this measurement of Pi, the observer will be able to determine that he is an accelerated frame of reference. When the merry-go-round is travelling clockwise, Pi would be smaller than if the merry go round was at rest. Likewise for the anti-clockwise case. From this he plots a graph of Pi versus angular velocity and finds the value of Pi for a flat region of space-time to be the maximum of this distribution. And this is the case buddy. It can be seen by drawing larger circles on a sphere and taking the ratio of C to d such that d is confined to surface of the sphere. I will assume this will take you days to reply to.
Stupid, stupid ryans, ************************************************* WRONG: Perhaps you would enlighten me and the rest of this MSB just what materials that you and Mr Greene are using in your merry-go-round that are exempt from the relavistic phenomena that your analogy is supposed to prove? If the ruler shrinks, then so does the merry-go-round damn it. Pi computes the same regardless of motion of the merry-go-round. Now it seems OK for Mr. Greene or yourself to be this stupid but can you imagine had I or Tom missed such a simple issue in a dicussion. NO. I have to conclude that you are unjustifiably predjudice and hold yourself in higher regard than is justified. You are ****. And finally it didn't take me days to respond back but it may take weeks for you to wipe the egg off your face. Where in the hell did you go to school. Or did you even go to school? You keep talking about all the finite details of Relativity and QM but you can't even see something as simple as this. Give me a break. No wonder Relativity is in trouble it is supported by a bunch of idiot wacko's. You should be banned from this MSB and leave it to the rest of us that has some common sense. **************************************************** Actually ****, I don't think you are stupid. You are unjustifiably critical of others and of new concepts. You see and want everybody else to see you higher on the ladder than you really are. But I thought it was time you got back some of your own material. You see just like c=Pi(r^2) is also stupid you make mistakes and you will be held to the same standard you pretend to hold others to. Have a nice weekend.
Another Thought on Relativity ryans, Another thought about your merry-go-round and Relativity. If the ruler shrinks and the rim of the merry-go-round shrinks but the struts (radial supports) don't shrink, how does it say round?
Mac you stupid f***. This is a popular science book, the aim of which is to make it as easily readable and comprehensible as possible. What, do you think a team at Stanford is going to make a relativistically spinning merry-go-round? I can just imagine what you were thinking when you read this. Little Mac on the Merry-go-round, waving to his Pa as he continues to spin faster and faster, the incessant motion of the horse suprisingly arrousing. Then little Mac whips out his ruler and measures the diameter and circumference of the merry-go round, finding it ratio is not equal to Pi. Thinking this is cannot be true, he sees the struts collapse around him as he is flung from the perimeter of the spinning catastrophe, only to be safely caught by his Pa. "Gee, thanks Pa" The example serves its point to illustrate the effects on a relativistic rigid rotator. Ho many books to think would sell if he explicity showed that Pi is indeed dependant on the curvature of space time which it is measured.
Twist ryans, An interesting twist. Considering my point was just the opposite. Pi doesn't change. It was you and Mr Greene that said it would. Are you saying that Mr Brian Greene book "The Elegant Universe" is Popular Science? I'm sure he would be elated to hear your comaprison.
Of course it is popular science, I can count the equations on my hand. Considering the nature of Briane Greens work, which is incomprehensible to most (including myself), this is very comprehensible. Trying to do physics without a pencil again Mac?
Logic Breakdown ryans, We are talking about something pretty damn simple and your stated logic broke down not my pencil. You said Brian Greene was right and that when measuring a rotating merry-go-round one gets a different circumference which is inconsistant with the standard Pi ratio compared to the measurement of the radius while in motion. I simply pointed out that YOU and Mr Greene are full of BS that if the ruler shrinks so does the circumference or the merry-go-round and Pi still measures the same. You are the one in trouble here and no amount of trying to attack me or my intelligence can get you out of this one.
Pi Ratio ryans, How else do you propose to verify the Pi ratio between the circumference and the radius (d/2)?
The diameter changes do to the observer being in an accelerated frame of reference. P.S. MacM you ****, pulsars spin relativistically. Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.
Direction of Motion ryans, Now this is new. I hope you have copyrighted it. The diameter of a rotating system is subjected to Lorentz Contraction orthogonal to its motion. Sideways Relativity. Glad I follow these sites I would never have known that.
Accelerated frames of reference ****. The merry-go-round is not in rectilinear motion, circular motion. From GR buddy. As with most popular science books, the author gives a simple conceptual example so as to convey his message, which you f***ed up.
And? ryans, First let me advise you that I have agreed with James R., that your habit of using profanity and personal attacks will not be responded to in kind. So feel free to shoot yourself in the foot. Janus58, Yes these were good links. I just don't know why ryans is so proud of them since they merely fail to answer the same question I have already asked. If the rod shrinks (and I happen to agree with Lorentz Contraction), then what material or affect do you propose precludes the rim of the merry-go-round from also shrinking.? There is none and this whole convoluted idea that Pi changes when measuring a rotating frame is unsubstantiated. To make my point abundantly clear and to preclude extended arguement over this issue, let me suggest that in the first instance I built my merry-go-round out of an errector set and it consisted of many rods of the same length. These are the same rods that I will use as my standards for incremental measurement and verification of the affect of relativity. Now say again Mr ryans. Is Pi changing when the merry-go-round rotates? If so please tell this MSB why the rim ( made of the same measuring rods used to check the relavistic affect) isn't shrinking in the same proportaion as the measuring rod and if they shrink together how a different measurement will result rotating or not rotating. Thank you. PS: This still leaves a problem for Relativity but I'll leave that for you to figure out for yourselves.
