2 Clock Experiment
- Thread starter Prosoothus
- Start date
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
Wow.
Talk about allusions of grandeur.
Talk about allusions of grandeur.
MacM
Isn't length contraction at relativistic speeds easily explained with SR? Its all in the frame of reference.
Isn't length contraction at relativistic speeds easily explained with SR? Its all in the frame of reference.
Illusions
Blackholesun,
ANS: This has nothing to do with illusions of grandure. It has to do with something pretty simple of which members here have refused to acknowledge.
The mis-information and description of reality when it comes to Relativity.
I did not and do not in this question challenge Relativity. I challenged the statements of those making erroneous presentations.
It has to do with the fact that Sr affecting the rim and GR affecting the radius of a rotating frame, cannot result in a measurable change in Pi.
The reason has nothing to do with a flw in Relativity but a flaw in the presentation arguement.
READ THIS SLOWLY AND STOP AND THINK BEFORE ENGAGING MOUTH:
"Whatever theory by whatever affect alters the circumference and/or radius of a rotating frame must also by like amounts and like fashion alter any ruler used to make the measurement; hence no means to measure a change in Pi."
Blackholesun,
ANS: This has nothing to do with illusions of grandure. It has to do with something pretty simple of which members here have refused to acknowledge.
The mis-information and description of reality when it comes to Relativity.
I did not and do not in this question challenge Relativity. I challenged the statements of those making erroneous presentations.
It has to do with the fact that Sr affecting the rim and GR affecting the radius of a rotating frame, cannot result in a measurable change in Pi.
The reason has nothing to do with a flw in Relativity but a flaw in the presentation arguement.
READ THIS SLOWLY AND STOP AND THINK BEFORE ENGAGING MOUTH:
"Whatever theory by whatever affect alters the circumference and/or radius of a rotating frame must also by like amounts and like fashion alter any ruler used to make the measurement; hence no means to measure a change in Pi."
Read Above
On radioactive Waves,
ANS: It has to do with something pretty simple of which members here have refused to acknowledge.
The mis-information and description of reality when it comes to Relativity.
I did not and do not in this question challenge Relativity. I challenged the statements of those making erroneous presentations.
It has to do with the fact that SR affecting the rim and GR affecting the radius of a rotating frame, cannot result in a measurable change in Pi.
The reason has nothing to do with a flaw in Relativity but a flaw in the presentation arguement.
****************************************************
"Whatever theory by whatever affect alters the circumference and/or radius of a rotating frame must also by like amounts and like fashion alter any ruler used to make the measurement; hence no means to measure a change in Pi."
****************************************************
This is the issue not Relativity perse.
Thanks.
report | quote | edit
On radioactive Waves,
ANS: It has to do with something pretty simple of which members here have refused to acknowledge.
The mis-information and description of reality when it comes to Relativity.
I did not and do not in this question challenge Relativity. I challenged the statements of those making erroneous presentations.
It has to do with the fact that SR affecting the rim and GR affecting the radius of a rotating frame, cannot result in a measurable change in Pi.
The reason has nothing to do with a flaw in Relativity but a flaw in the presentation arguement.
****************************************************
"Whatever theory by whatever affect alters the circumference and/or radius of a rotating frame must also by like amounts and like fashion alter any ruler used to make the measurement; hence no means to measure a change in Pi."
****************************************************
This is the issue not Relativity perse.
Thanks.
report | quote | edit
Turn About
chroot,
That is called turn about. That is what I'm being told when I screw up.
He was making irrelevant accusations about illusions of grandure.
Not much grandure in knowing if a rotating frame contracts and the ruler contracts by the same amount you will get the same measurement as though it were at rest.
chroot,
That is called turn about. That is what I'm being told when I screw up.
He was making irrelevant accusations about illusions of grandure.
Not much grandure in knowing if a rotating frame contracts and the ruler contracts by the same amount you will get the same measurement as though it were at rest.
Ruler
Persol,
The arguement started because I made the statement I did not like Brian Greenes "the elegant universe" because he used incorrect analogies in presenting Relativity.
He didn't say ruler but used the term measuring rod. He gave the illustration of a man crawling along the circumference of a merry go round would get a different measurement of its circumference using the same rod than he did if it was not in motion.
He further went on to say that that caused the calulation of Pi to change hence evidence of different geometry.
After that there were several other examples of the same arguements being made in the presentation of Relativity.
ryan made one of them by introducing GR affecting the radius and changing the calculation of Pi.
My whole issue was really quite simple and had nothing to do with Relativity perse.
It was the fact that any affect by any theory on the circumference and/or radius would also affect the measuring rod in the same manner and magnitude, hence the measurement would not change and hence Pi would calculate the same.
Persol,
The arguement started because I made the statement I did not like Brian Greenes "the elegant universe" because he used incorrect analogies in presenting Relativity.
He didn't say ruler but used the term measuring rod. He gave the illustration of a man crawling along the circumference of a merry go round would get a different measurement of its circumference using the same rod than he did if it was not in motion.
He further went on to say that that caused the calulation of Pi to change hence evidence of different geometry.
After that there were several other examples of the same arguements being made in the presentation of Relativity.
ryan made one of them by introducing GR affecting the radius and changing the calculation of Pi.
My whole issue was really quite simple and had nothing to do with Relativity perse.
It was the fact that any affect by any theory on the circumference and/or radius would also affect the measuring rod in the same manner and magnitude, hence the measurement would not change and hence Pi would calculate the same.
MacM:
The circumference of a merry-go-round moves faster than the axis. Do you agree?
The circumference moves faster than a point half way between the circumference and the centre. Do you agree?
Then, according to relativity, rulers at the circumference shrink by a different factor than rulers at the centre or half way between the centre and the edge. Do you agree?
Do you therefore agree that, just maybe, rulers on the m-g-r might conceivably measure different distances depending on where they are?
The circumference of a merry-go-round moves faster than the axis. Do you agree?
The circumference moves faster than a point half way between the circumference and the centre. Do you agree?
Then, according to relativity, rulers at the circumference shrink by a different factor than rulers at the centre or half way between the centre and the edge. Do you agree?
Do you therefore agree that, just maybe, rulers on the m-g-r might conceivably measure different distances depending on where they are?
Not the Problem
James R.,
ANS: That was not the presentation. The presentation and the objection is that they show men crawling along the circumference and crawling along the radius.
I am well aware if you look upon a moving object you can induce observational changes but even in this case the observation would include the contraction of the circumference by amounts equal to that of the ruler. Still no measureable change.
Infact imagine that instead of multiple rulers you attach a flexable tape measure to the circumference. Now tell me the tape measure contracts but the circumference doesn't.
James R.,
ANS: That was not the presentation. The presentation and the objection is that they show men crawling along the circumference and crawling along the radius.
I am well aware if you look upon a moving object you can induce observational changes but even in this case the observation would include the contraction of the circumference by amounts equal to that of the ruler. Still no measureable change.
Infact imagine that instead of multiple rulers you attach a flexable tape measure to the circumference. Now tell me the tape measure contracts but the circumference doesn't.
You know watching you Mac, is like watching a really bad daytime soapie (drama). You can miss 2 months of the show, but still know exactly what's going on.
If you are so brilliant, what are you doing here. All the time you've spent here could have been used to further the mathematics for your theories. That is what makes you a super crackpot.
The m-g-r pi problem was solvec about a month ago by myself, move on, I and everybody else argueing with you is right.
If you are so brilliant, what are you doing here. All the time you've spent here could have been used to further the mathematics for your theories. That is what makes you a super crackpot.
The m-g-r pi problem was solvec about a month ago by myself, move on, I and everybody else argueing with you is right.
Pathetic
ryans,
ANS: That is pathetic. You now want to claim victory saying you gave a correct answer?
You said Pi changes. Explain how that is supposed to happen when any relavistic affect on the m-g-r must not only affect the ruler but the m-g-r as well.
Both change, no measurement change, hence no change in calculated Pi.
Trying to slip in the back door and say your answer was valid from months ago don't cut it.
Post an explanation of how your "Pi Changes" response occurs and I indeed will acknowledge you are correct. As of this date you have been incorrect and simply refuse to acknowledge it.
ryans,
ANS: That is pathetic. You now want to claim victory saying you gave a correct answer?
You said Pi changes. Explain how that is supposed to happen when any relavistic affect on the m-g-r must not only affect the ruler but the m-g-r as well.
Both change, no measurement change, hence no change in calculated Pi.
Trying to slip in the back door and say your answer was valid from months ago don't cut it.
Post an explanation of how your "Pi Changes" response occurs and I indeed will acknowledge you are correct. As of this date you have been incorrect and simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Re: Pathetic
Originally posted by MacM
ANS: That is pathetic. You now want to claim victory saying you gave a correct answer?
MacM, I'd just like to point out that you have done the same thinbg numerous times. The only difference is that ryans has demonstrated the math/knowledge on the subject and proved it. You just claim victory without showing any proof... just things you consider inconsistant, which really aren't.
You said Pi changes. Explain how that is supposed to happen whn any relavistic affect on the m-g-r must not only affect the ruler but the m-g-r as well.
The ratio of circumference to diameter is not fixed, so pi changes.
In general relativity, space and spacetime are non-Euclidean geometries. The ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle in non-Euclidean geometry can be more or less than pi.
Pi the constant does not change, but pi the measurement does. The definition of Pi the constant is based on Euclidean geometries, but the geometries in questoin may not be Euclidean.
Originally posted by MacM
ANS: That is pathetic. You now want to claim victory saying you gave a correct answer?
MacM, I'd just like to point out that you have done the same thinbg numerous times. The only difference is that ryans has demonstrated the math/knowledge on the subject and proved it. You just claim victory without showing any proof... just things you consider inconsistant, which really aren't.
You said Pi changes. Explain how that is supposed to happen whn any relavistic affect on the m-g-r must not only affect the ruler but the m-g-r as well.
The ratio of circumference to diameter is not fixed, so pi changes.
In general relativity, space and spacetime are non-Euclidean geometries. The ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle in non-Euclidean geometry can be more or less than pi.
Pi the constant does not change, but pi the measurement does. The definition of Pi the constant is based on Euclidean geometries, but the geometries in questoin may not be Euclidean.
Double Talk
Persol,
I am not even going to cut and paste your responses because quite simply they are double talk.
Different geometries certainly but neither you nor ryans have yet shown that a moving frame alters the m-g-r and not the ruler in the same fashion and by the same amount.
That being the case there is no measurement change, as claimed by the presenters of Relativity, which was my objection. Not that Relativity doesn't or may not infact alter dimension due to motion.
Once again by what justification do you or anybodyelse claim that motion of the m-g-r alters the circumference and/or radius by SR and GR respectively that would not have the same SR and GR affect also alter the ruler, whereby the measurement would always be the same, hence no change in Pi.?
You really don't seem to understand. It does not matter what geometry you invoke. There is no change in Pi because the affects of Relativity alter the m-g-r and ruler the same..
Persol,
I am not even going to cut and paste your responses because quite simply they are double talk.
Different geometries certainly but neither you nor ryans have yet shown that a moving frame alters the m-g-r and not the ruler in the same fashion and by the same amount.
That being the case there is no measurement change, as claimed by the presenters of Relativity, which was my objection. Not that Relativity doesn't or may not infact alter dimension due to motion.
Once again by what justification do you or anybodyelse claim that motion of the m-g-r alters the circumference and/or radius by SR and GR respectively that would not have the same SR and GR affect also alter the ruler, whereby the measurement would always be the same, hence no change in Pi.?
You really don't seem to understand. It does not matter what geometry you invoke. There is no change in Pi because the affects of Relativity alter the m-g-r and ruler the same..
Last edited:
Geez.
Length only changes in the direction of motion (circumference). The radius does not change.
You measure radius, and the ruler is the same length (although different width) as a stationary ruler. When you measure circumference, the ruler is a different length. Then you calculate pi, and won't get 3.14~.
It's the same argument that is used for near c length contraction. The rotating frame is an accelerating frame.
Length only changes in the direction of motion (circumference). The radius does not change.
You measure radius, and the ruler is the same length (although different width) as a stationary ruler. When you measure circumference, the ruler is a different length. Then you calculate pi, and won't get 3.14~.
It's the same argument that is used for near c length contraction. The rotating frame is an accelerating frame.
No
Persol,
ANS: Untrue. Ryans claims GR also affects the radius. I believe James R., agreed with that. So the radius doesn't stay the same.
No wonder you get a wrong Pi. You just turned the ruler sideways. You measure the circumference in the direction of motion, with the ruler turned lengthwise.
And still whatever Relavistics affects there are they affect the ruler and the m-g-r exactly the same. Try again.
Persol,
ANS: Untrue. Ryans claims GR also affects the radius. I believe James R., agreed with that. So the radius doesn't stay the same.
No wonder you get a wrong Pi. You just turned the ruler sideways. You measure the circumference in the direction of motion, with the ruler turned lengthwise.
And still whatever Relavistics affects there are they affect the ruler and the m-g-r exactly the same. Try again.
