Relativity of Simultaneity Gendankin

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Feb 3, 2006.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Nice try but I do not see any supporting documentation. Post a link that shows the Rpm of a flywheel changing according to relative velocity.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,723
    Then I suppose you can prove one or more of the following:

    A) The spacetime interval between e0 and e1 is not 0
    B) Spacetime intervals are frame-variant in SR
    C) Events with a light-like separation do not have a spacetime interval of 0

    -Dale
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Simply false.

    Funny it doesn't need to be overly rigid. It is merely rotating, not accelerating. having been brought to operating Rpm slowly or for a long period all tension or torsion will have been rlieved an the device would be rotating freely in a stable relationship from one end to the other. Hmmmm. Try again.

    Tough. Get used to it. The universe doesn't actually revolve around relativity.

    False for reasons pointed out. Even if there were residual torsional displacement after stabilizing, it could be offset (calibrated out). This is a gendankin after all and nothing has to be physically or mechanically achievable. It is almost laughable that you want to suggest that mechanical deformation is going to match the simultaneity shift of a rigid trap such that the trap fails to perfectly match the needs for SR to survive. Yes laughable.

    Genmdankins are "What If" scenarios. Deal with it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,723
    No, but this thread does. You have made the explicit claim that SR predicts a frame-dependent trap. So wether or not the universe agrees with SR is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is what is the prediction of SR in this instance. And, as I have shown, the SR prediction is that the light passes in all frames, regardless of the relative velocity.

    -Dale
     
  8. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Actually, MacM,you have cut to the heart of SRT, whether you recognize it or not.

    How else can an observer on a moving frame always measure the relative speed of light of frame wrt photon as c unless he first assumes his frame velocity is zero?

    Einstein made the erroneous assertion that principles of relativity means that the relative velocity of frame photon must be the same[\b] in all inertial frames, when this is simply not true relativisitically or otherwise.

    The only way the math works is to assume in the V + c or the v - c case that v = 0, then the "relative motion" of frame and photon is always c.

    Einstein confused, purposefully it appears, realtive motion and absolute motion. The speed of light is constant, in all coordinate frames of reference, it is the relative motion that varies based on the velocity, the abste velocity, of the frame wrt the vacua, the embankment. Use the same reference frames and life is good again.

    c- v = w is merely a statement of how much faster is light than the frame, both measured wrt the vacua, or the embankment. C + v is the same, the closing speed of frame and photon moving anti-parallel (in opposite directions). That the latter expression is greater than c violates no laws of physics.

    Geistkiesel
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    MacM replied:
    OK, I will quote your own words from first post of this thread:
    ______________________________
    * I inserted "yellow pass" for clarity, as MacM is using "neutral" exactly wrong -I.e. not meaning a wavelength neutral filter, but a wavelength selective filter.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2006
  10. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Tell you what: if you post a link that shows the rpm of a flywheel DOESN'T change according to relative velocity, then I'll dig one out.
     
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    No, every particle in a rotating object is undergoing acceleration at all times. How else could they move in curved paths? The "torsion" here doesn't arise from spinning up the trap, but from accelerating the train up to relativistic speeds, which is why the resulting offset matches the time it takes a light pulse to travel through it.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    How many times do I have to repeat that this is not about what SR predicts. It is about physics. Now if you what to present an SR solution do so but this thread is not about what SR predicts.
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Only the SRT imposed Velocity Addition to keep it internally consistant.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Thank you. Now please post my corrections to DaleSpam over the intended purpose of this thread which is not the SRT prediction or doppler shift aspects but logic showing the better answer is different photons in different frames, not some magical power of each photon.
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Doesn't cut it. You are the one that has stated the flywheel slows down with relative velocity. Now support that assertion. I say it is crap.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Internal stress of rotation doesn't misalign the aperatures. Only torsion along the mechanical coupling shaft does that. The shaft only has torsion during being brought up to rotational operating speed.
     
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Your welcome. I thought it would be hard for you to refute yourself (your posted text). You are continuing to make these silly claims - for example at 38 minutes past the hour yesterday you said that SRT predicts "A" in one frame and "not A" in another:
    I do not even know what trap you are talking about but know this is more nonsense. If A in any frame (where A is some physical event like explosion, photon passing a gate, light bulb burning out, etc) then A is true for all frames.

    Frames are just reference coordinates They have no effect upon events.

    Again one does not need to eat all of a rotten egg to know it is rotten. Thus I have no intention to read the details of your trap.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 23, 2006
  18. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    I thought I would respond to this assertion. Everything from solar systems to galaxies are 'flywheels' in a manner of speaking. So are pulsars, magnetars, etc. Quadraphonics, you do realize that the radii of orbits and the corresponding velocities are inversely proportional to the mass of the bodies, don't you? STR implies the relativistic mass would increase with relative velocity between frames, but orbital velocities of the observed moving system would slow down. Instead, we find rotational velocities of spiral galaxies, for instance, are much faster than their mass would imply. Yes, the Milky Way and M31 are both rotating too fast. Galaxies 10 billion light years away receeding at near the speed of light are rotating too fast. Galaxies that have almost no relative velocity wrt us are rotating too fast. No, observed rotational speed does not 'slow' with relative velocity. No correlation between rotational velocity and relative velocity exists. Did you know NASA used a clock synchronized by a pulsar in at least one mission? Deep Space 1, iirc.
     
  19. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    This is not about "physics", it is a gedanken not an actual experiment. By their nature gedankens cannot give results independent of a particular theory.

    So which theory predicts this frame-dependent trap? You cannot have it both ways. If you are using this thread to show an inconsistency in SR then it is about what SR predicts. If you are using this thread to show an inconsistency in some other theory then tell us which theory. Once you have established the theory that you are choosing to attack with this gedanken, then quit whining whenever someone uses that theory to address your gedanken.

    To this point the only theory that predicts any frame-dependent effects appears to be MacM theory.

    -Dale
     
  20. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    There seems to be widespread confusion on this forum about that. It isn't just MacM. Perhaps a thread on frames and transforms in general would be worthwhile.

    -Dale
     
  21. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,723
    2inquisitive, MacM, quadraphonics,

    The rotating flywheel experiment has been done (gravity probe B), but the data is still being analyzed. The flywheels fashioned for that experiment are the most perfectly spherical objects ever manufactured. The galaxies and other orbital systems are not rigid, so they are not really flywheels. We will have to wait for the results of gravity probe B to be analyzed to determine experimentally if flywheels do, in fact, slow down.

    However, the SR claim is unambiguous that time itself slows down. So all clocks, including flywheels, will slow down according to SR.

    -Dale
     
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Babble. gravity probe B is a test of frame fragging, not Rpm vs relative veloicty. There is no relationship between the two.
     
  23. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,371
    Fine, but the moment you break with SRT your flywheel gedanken experiment can say nothing about SRT's internal consistency.

    In the same way that I can't disprove an axiom of real arithmetic if in the process I divide by zero.
     

Share This Page