shape of a relativistic wheel

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by DRZion, Oct 31, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Sigh. Because what you are looking at is the geometric locus of all points whose light transit time from the point on the object to the camera is equal within an error of less than half the shutter time. It is a rendering, no spokes have moved around, ok?
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    It is very easy to prove, I can upload a file that shows all the details. Before I do, think about this The light from the source arrives at an object receding from it redshifted. The same light is reflected by the object approaching the camera, so it will be blueshifted by the same exact amount. Net effect: zero Doppler shift,

    Why do you refuse to do the calculation? Because it proves you wrong? The difference in light transit time for the two examples I gave you are \(1.6 . 10^{-10}\) and \(1.6 . 10^{-11}\). Find a camera with a shutter aperture of half that.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    No, Tach, it's a diagram graphing your equation for the spokes in the ground frame.
    You agreed to this back in post 168.

    Don't be confused.
    spacetime.org movies = camera simulation.
    quickmath diagram = your spoke equation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Yes, I've thought about it before. Upload your file.

    It's a simulation, Tach.
    The wheels are light seconds wide, the camera is light seconds away.
    Do the calculation.
     
  8. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    You could learn some manners, especially when you are asking for something.
    See here.

    LOL
     
  9. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    my equation.......graphed for t=constant. Let it be, I will not answer any more nonsense on this subject.
     
  10. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Beams and specks spring to mind, but I apologize for the abruptness of my request.
    What, you can't comprehend the idea of a simulation spanning light-seconds?
     
  11. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Correct.
    Here it is:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    At t=0, your equation demonstrates that there are more spokes above y=R than below.

    As you wish. The conclusion is clear.
     
  12. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    I do, I know a very good professor who, when confronted with such nonsense, answers: "if my grandmother had tires she would be a trolleybus".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    No, there aren't, the raytracer program renders more spokes in the upper half, no spokes have really "migrated". It is easy to disprove that, put a strip of paper covering the lower half of the wheel and you'll only see half of the spokes. So, no spokes have migrated in the upper half. If you paid attention to one of my earlier posts to you , you would have thought about this. Physics always trumps nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
  14. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Tach, we're not talking about a raytracer program here, this is a simple graphing of your equation.
    Your handwaving will get you nowhere.
    Maths always trumps handwaving.

    This is your equation:
    Do you think your equation is nonsense?
    This is its graphical representation with r = 2, v = 0.8c, t = 0:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Do you think this graphical representation is nonsense?
    If so, then please graph it yourself and show the results.
     
  15. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    So, you did not understand the argument. Forget about the renderer/ camera/ etc. Put a strip of paper covering the lower half of the wheel. How many spokes will you see: 4 , 5 or 6?
     
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    uploaded file

    You describe an object approaching the camera and receding from the lightsource. That's a window, not a mirror.

    Try again, for a mirror that is not between the light source and the camera.
     
  17. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    No, it isn't worth it, you failed to recognize a moving mirror. This is specifically the case occurring in raytracers, object BETWEEN the light source and the camera (in general, the light source is at infinity).
    I know what you are talking about, the case you are talking about does not exist in raytracers.
     
  18. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Firstly, Tach, you're claim wasn't limited to raytracers:
    Secondly, in your analysis the light passes though the object without changing direction, so of course there is no doppler shift, and the object is obviously not a mirror.

    If light reflects off an object, then there is a doppler shift.
    Try again - light source behind the camera, moving object in front of the camera.
    Light reflects off the object onto the camera.
    Easy.


    Actually, I don't even know why I'm pushing this. Your claim is so ludicrously false that I shouldn't have taken the bait in the first place.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2011
  19. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Your own equation shows that at t=0, there are 5 spokes above the paper.

    What we see is a different question, addressed by the spacetime.org videos which we were discussing until you decided your grandma was a trolleybus.
     
  20. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Bad answer, there will be 4.

    You are reverting to being an ass.
     
  21. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Count them, Tach:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Remember, this is your equation for the spokes at t=0.
    No raytracing. The actual spoke positions at t=0.
     
  22. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    This is what my writeup is about, does not include trivial cases.

    Err no, you didn't understand a simple picture, see the angle of reflection equal to the angle of incidence? See the normal N to the object? No? Look again.


    Unfortunately you can't read a very simple figure.

    Yes, this is the case you failed to understand. Better luck next time.
     
  23. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    No raytracing, just a piece of paper between you and the wheel. You are 40 years old, if there is any chance that you will become a physicist, you need to start trying to understand what is being explained to you. This starts with being willing to learn rather than being stuck on being right at any cost.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page