Relativistic rolling tank

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Pete, Jul 20, 2006.

  1. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I addressed these clocks earlier in the thread.
    Yes, the three clocks start simultaneously in the ground frame. Since they're in the same position in the direction of the tank's travel, they also start simultaneously in the tank frame and the upper tread frame.

    Yes, that's correct.
    They would be incorrect, since they are calculating speed with tank-frame lengths and ground-frame clocks.
    A smarter normal person would place two clocks a known distance aparton the ground (say 20 feet), synchronize those clocks using any method you like, then find the time (23.5ns) it takes the front of the tank to get from one clock to the next.
    Then, they can correctly calculate the ground frame speed of the tank: 0.866c.

    Using your setup, the ground observer can determine neither the speed of the tank nor its length. They can assume that the length of the tank is the same as it was when at rest, but why would they do that when with a little more preparation they can measure the speed directly and thus deduce the length?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Pete, that is crap. The only thing recorded in the ground frame is elapse time, the total time it takes for the tank to pass through the laser beams. The clock on the top tank tread can only beat at a certain rate. Any one clock on the tread will only pass through the laser beam once, so how could it possibly record the distance or an elapse time? You state it will be "off the ground" a specific time, but that was not a part of my example, was it? I used the top laser to count cleats as they broke the beam, and the total amount of time required from the first 'break' to the last. I skipped all this stupid shit of an observer 'seeing' what how much time has passed on a clock moving past him a .866c in a different reference frame. Clocks record time, they don't measure distance or look at other clocks. Clocks on the ground record time in that reference frame, and clocks on the tank record time in that reference frame. The tank clocks can only record the elapse time from the instant the front of the tank breaks the ground-based laser beams until the rear of the tank breaks the beams a second time, same as the ground clocks. You can bring the clocks together after they have made their recordings and compare them, but they don't have eyes.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    DaleSpam, it is very amusing to watch your antics here. You don't have a clue as to what I am actually stating. All you know how to do is dish out ad hominems. I don't give a shit about 'proving SR wrong', its inadequacies are already known by intelligent physicists.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    Excellent. Then you are right on track. Carry on!

    -Dale

    PS My post wasn't ad-hominem; quit whining.
     
  8. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    I'm just telling you SR says you'd find if you looked, 2inq. Not recording something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
    Yes, this is all correct, although I don't know why you felt the need to point it out. Do you think that I suggested that clocks have eyes? Are you projecting some stereotype of "SR dogma" onto me?
     
  9. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    2inquisitive,
    DaleSpam,
    Thanks, Dale!
     
  10. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    ROFL, I guess I deserved that for quoting you out of context

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    -Dale
     
  11. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    In any case, 2inq, I understand exactly what you are saying. I have done the math to understand it. You are the one who can't seem to figure this out or even follow the math when it is laid out plainly for you. I have invited you multiple times to make a little effort, but you prefer your ignorance. What do you expect me to do but poke fun at your pathetic efforts? Every thing you are bringing up now has already been analyzed and dismissed. You, on the other hand, have yet to analyze or understand any of the mathematical solutions I have presented.

    -Dale
     
  12. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Dale; when you shape shift between Fitzgerald/Lorentz theory and Einstein Special Relativity theory and then add your own special twist to it, you mix frames far worse than anyone you have ever criticised for that sin.

    In previous exchanges with you you have made it obvious in plain response to me on the plainly stated subject, that you do not believe that Special Relativity dictates that the raw observation is the fundamental basis of reality in Special Relativity.

    Very well, if you demand the right to take a raw observation and then modify its information and the implications, why cannot any of us do the same thing?

    You can never be proved wrong in your adulation of Special Relativity because you will always shift its meaning to whatever meaning will uphold your momentary understanding and exposition of it.

    If you really had done the pertinent calculations, you would already be personally aware of the unresolvable paradoxes. You have not done those calculations. Or, you telling us a joke about what your results were.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2006
  13. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Pete, I looked hard enough and finally found my dictionary and dusted off most of the spiders and moths. And I also got my computer and its spoell checker to boot up ( with Windows, no small victory ) so I am still waiting for you to spell out all the ways you want to that Special Relativity faces paradoxes but is still perfectly legitimate.
     
  14. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    What paradoxes?
    I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that SR says that the top parts of the track are moving at 0.9897c in the ground frame, not 2c.
     
  15. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    My attention has been diverted by matters that were even more important than exposing your fraudulent claims about Special Relativity.

    Very soon your fraudulent stance concerning your tank's track's velocities will be exposed as the misguided daydream that they are.

    My calculations were finished weeks ago. They will be posted here to exhibit fraud that has perpertrated upon the people of this forum.
     
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    The anticipation is killing me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,612
    Anticipation is finally serving a good cause.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page