3 Clock Rates (Again)

[MacM]

Ryans,

Originally posted by MacM
WHAT? I can understand Ryans wanting to forget but there were other that initially claimed I was wrong and tried to give esoteric explanations...
As I recall, the original question was ill-defined. The only bickering was who was the observer and how he was observing. Once that was actually clarified the solution was not difficult.

ANS: This is a clear case of selective memory. Go back and look at the thread. My complaint was clearly stated as an objection to Brian Greenes claim that observers ON the merry go round got different measurements when the wheel was at rest or moving.

You wasted several weeks argueing all sorts of things, none of which addressed the original complaint. As late as last week you still stated Pi changed but that I just didn't understand. Nice try but my question and your answers are recorded for history. You can't change either. Your choice is to finally admit you made a mistake.

What I have done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.
As was stated before the ruler is not alwasy in the same frame of reference.

ANS: Any first grader knows the ruler can be in any number of frames of reference but the question is clear.

The ruler is in the frame of reference. The same frame of reference that the rocket is traveling in.

That is the distance you claim changes. If it doesn't change then it is still the same distance for the rocket.

Hence the acceleration disparity does not exist because distance DID NOT change. That was my point of raising the issue. Either distance doesn't change (my view) or you now must explain the acceleration disparity.

Which do you want to choose?

There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.
Well... no. An error is "you said [this] and [that] and [this] is wrong because of [evidence]." A short coming is "your theory is [this], but it does not solve when [that] happens." A poor argument is "your theory of [this] does not take into account the 'underlying truth'."

ANS: Talk is cheap. You just made a bunch of statements, none of which address the issue at hand and are fabricated crap on top of it. I haven't said a damn thing about my theory here.

You can't say anything about my theory because you know virtually nothing about it, except that it finds Relativity to fall short of being shown abolutely valid as opposed to some other more practical explanations for the same results.

I have asked you (the MSB) a question about Relativity and as usual I am not getting an answer. Wonder why?.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius

 

[Persol]

...as usual I am not getting an answer. Wonder why?.
Because nobody cares anymore. I will spend my time pointing out when you are wrong, but I'm not going to bother showing you wnhy anymore. You have demonstrated time and time again your ignorance. I'm surprised James spends as much time to give you as much information as he still does.

 

[MacM]

Persol,

...as usual I am not getting an answer. Wonder why?.
Because nobody cares anymore. I will spend my time pointing out when you are wrong, but I'm not going to bother showing you wnhy anymore. You have demonstrated time and time again your ignorance. I'm surprised James spends as much time to give you as much information as he still does.

ANSnly a couple of things wrong with your post.

1 - You spend to much time trying to claim I am wrong but you normally are talking about a different issue, such as in the Quasar string.

2 - Your claim that I am ignorant only lowers your level. Since you have failed to provide actual valid answers to my questions, I suggest that I must be above you. Therefore if I am ignorant where does that put you.

James R., at least has learned to qualify his statements with "If", etc., you would do well to do the same.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[Persol]

Agreed, "if" is a very good qualifier. In that vein:

If you are not getting any answers, it is because nobody cares anymore.

 

[MacM]

Persol,

If you are not getting any answers, it is because nobody cares anymore.

ANS: Nice cop out but just don't relax yet. I have e-mailed a scientific source to comment on the four quasar data sets in question.

Sleep well.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[James R]

MacM:

<i>ANS: WHAT? I can understand Ryans wanting to forget but there were other that initially claimed I was wrong and tried to give esoteric explanations (You were one of them as I recall). It was a long string. How can you say nobody here disagrees ?</i>

I thought we cleared up the incorrect use of language previously. "pi" is a fundamental mathematical constant, with approximate value 3.14159... It never changes. Nobody has ever argued, except when using the language in a very loose way, that pi changes.

What changes on the merry-go-round is the ratio of measured circumference to measured diameter (depending, of course, on who does the measuring and from what frame of reference). There is your disagreement. You say that ratio <b>never</b> changes. Everybody who knows anything about relativity disagrees with you.

<i>ANS: Again you seem to miss the point. I do not say that Lorentz Contraction doesn't occur. So your answer doesn't apply to me.</i>

Well, I could have sworn that was what your statement implies.

<i>What I hve done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.</i>

And I have told you over and over again that the length of a ruler will depend on your velocity relative to the ruler. That's basic relativity.

<i>That suggest that something may be missing here don't you think?</i>

No.

<i>ANS: There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.</i>

You have failed to do either in the case of relativity.

<i>Until you or another Relativist explains the above question I think my understanding of physics and the short comings of Relativity are doing just fine.</i>

You have already been answered. Again, I say that your inability to understand a careful explanation does not make you right and us wrong.

 

[MacM]

James R.,

What changes on the merry-go-round is the ratio of measured circumference to measured diameter (depending, of course, on who does the measuring and from what frame of reference). There is your disagreement. You say that ratio never changes. Everybody who knows anything about relativity disagrees with you.

ANS: Wrong again I'm afraid James. I have never argued that Pi doesn't change under certain circumstances.

The entire string was about measurements being made by observers riding on the merry-go-round. Go back and look. We seem to be having selective memory here.

Pi (Nor the measured ratio) change for the observer on the merry go round. That was the case that was presented and Ryans disagreed (as did some others). I was right and you nor the others have every found the courage to admit it. But that is ok, as long as we keep the facts of the case correct others know who was right.

ANS: Again you seem to miss the point. I do not say that Lorentz Contraction doesn't occur. So your answer doesn't apply to me.

Well, I could have sworn that was what your statement implies.

ANS: It may seem to imply that but it was a simple question about Relativity and Lorentz Contraction.

What I have done is ask for an explanation of how distance changes when the ruler also changes and you will get the same measurement.

And I have told you over and over again that the length of a ruler will depend on your velocity relative to the ruler. That's basic relativity.

ANS: Yes and I agree. But that wasn't the question and you know it. To repeat "How does the distance change to the rocket pilot for whom you claim distance is changed, when his ruler says there was no change?

His after all is the only meaningful referance frame for if he measures the distance with his contracted ruler he measures no change.

Yes or No.

That suggest that something may be missing here don't you think?

No.

ANS: Then answer the above question and explain this answer.

ANS: There is a fine line between showing something in error and pointing out its short comings.

You have failed to do either in the case of relativity.

ANS: It does seem that since none of the Relativist here has answered this question that you are in error with that statement.

Until you or another Relativist explains the above question I think my understanding of physics and the short comings of Relativity are doing just fine.

You have already been answered. Again, I say that your inability to understand a careful explanation does not make you right and us wrong.

ANS: What a shame. Nobody seems to have the courage to admit that they haven't (and in my opinion can't) answer the question. What I get are discussion about other reference frames. Frames that have no bearing on the distance the pilot sees and has to travel.

All the double talk in the world can't hide the failure of the concept. You can't claim the distance for the pilot contracted at all because from his vantage point his ruler (also contracted) will measure the same distance and his is the only distance that matters.

And if I am at rest (orthogonal) to the rocket and the planet it is headed for I have no relative velocity and my ruler will show no change between the rocket and planet.

Repeating that I just don't understand doesn't make it so. And it seems clear to me that this case is unresolved.

Again, don't tell us about measurements made by others with relative velocity to the rocket and its ruler, tell us how the distance has changed for the pilot of the rocket since he is the one traveling the distance whatever it is.

I await a legitimate answer.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[James R]

MacM:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What changes on the merry-go-round is the ratio of measured circumference to measured diameter (depending, of course, on who does the measuring and from what frame of reference). There is your disagreement. You say that ratio never changes. Everybody who knows anything about relativity disagrees with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<i>Wrong again I'm afraid James. I have never argued that Pi doesn't change under certain circumstances.</i>

Yes, I'm the one arguing that Pi never changes. You are wrong if you say it does.

<i>The entire string was about measurements being made by observers riding on the merry-go-round. Go back and look. We seem to be having selective memory here.</i>

Not selective memory. Yes, we were talking about measurements made on the MGR. The question then becomes: from <b>where</b> on the MGR? Because points on the circumference of a MGR are a different reference frame from the centre of the MGR (they accelerate at different rates). Both a person at the centre <b>and</b> a person on the edge will find, if they measure things in a consistent way, that the ratio of measured circumference to diameter is not equal to pi when the MGR is rotating (as ryans and I have been arguing all along.)

<i>I was right and you nor the others have every found the courage to admit it.</i>

What arrogant nonsense.

<i>But that is ok, as long as we keep the facts of the case correct others know who was right.</i>

Indeed.

<i>To repeat "How does the distance change to the rocket pilot for whom you claim distance is changed, when his ruler says there was no change?</i>

Which distance are you talking about? Half your problem is that you are never specific enough about reference frames and observers.

<i>ANS: What a shame. Nobody seems to have the courage to admit that they haven't (and in my opinion can't) answer the question.</i>

Been there, done that.

<i>What I get are discussion about other reference frames. Frames that have no bearing on the distance the pilot sees and has to travel.</i>

You clearly have no idea what relativity is.

<i>All the double talk in the world can't hide the failure of the concept.</i>

Yeah, yeah, you're smarter than Einstein. Blah blah blah.

<i>You can't claim the distance for the pilot contracted at all because from his vantage point his ruler (also contracted) will measure the same distance and his is the only distance that matters.</i>

Same distance as what? Which distance?

<i>Again, don't tell us about measurements made by others with relative velocity to the rocket and its ruler, tell us how the distance has changed for the pilot of the rocket since he is the one traveling the distance whatever it is.</i>

If a rocket sets out to travel from, say, Earth to Mars, then as soon as it takes off from Earth the pilot will perceive the distance between the two planets to be shorter than it was before he took off, as measured by his rulers alone.

<i>I await a legitimate answer. </i>

Read my previous paragraph. There's your answer.

 

[MacM]

James R.,

MacM:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What changes on the merry-go-round is the ratio of measured circumference to measured diameter (depending, of course, on who does the measuring and from what frame of reference). There is your disagreement. You say that ratio never changes. Everybody who knows anything about relativity disagrees with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again I'm afraid James. I have never argued that Pi doesn't change under certain circumstances.

Yes, I'm the one arguing that Pi never changes. You are wrong if you say it does.

ANS: You are giving me whiplash James. Please go back and look at those posts. If you didn't say Pi changed then you most certainly vouched for those that said it did.

Now lets clear the air here. You have said Pi is a recognized number and that number doesn't change. Nobody has a disagreement with that. But it has also been claimed that a value for Pi (i.e. the ratio for the circumference to the radius) does change.

I have already agreed with that based on different observers.

But that was not the issues, nor the discussion. The issue and I shouldn't really have to keep repeating this, was that it had been claimed that the observer ON THE RIM of the MGR would measure a change in circumference and an observer along the radius would not and that therefore the value of Pi would change.

My position was it would not. Don't keep moving the goal post, it won't work. My statement was correct and Brian Greenes was wrong and it was Ryan's (and others) that argued against my position claiming I didn't understand Relativity. It was they that assumed to much, as you now seem to be doing as well, and claimed I was in error and just didn't understand.

It was Ryans that brought GR into a changing radius but I also showed that that did not alter the results either since the ruler on the radius would also be affected the same amount as the radius and so that no measurable change in the value for Pi would occur.

End of story. All you guys have to do is admit your errors and move on.

The entire string was about measurements being made by observers riding on the merry-go-round. Go back and look. We seem to be having selective memory here.

Not selective memory. Yes, we were talking about measurements made on the MGR. The question then becomes: from where on the MGR? Because points on the circumference of a MGR are a different reference frame from the centre of the MGR (they accelerate at different rates). Both a person at the centre and a person on the edge will find, if they measure things in a consistent way, that the ratio of measured circumference to diameter is not equal to pi when the MGR is rotating (as ryans and I have been arguing all along.)

ANS: I have never said otherwise. At no time have I said the observer stood at the center of the MGR. It was clearly stated that he crawled along the radius and he measured the radius (not the circumference). Another crawled along the circumference and measured the circumference (not the radius) and they compared their measurements.

That was the Brian Greene example and what I objected to. Like it or not James I am right (and I think you know it but can't admit it) and all the arguements to the contrary have been distortions of the issues at hand. Not valid answers.

I was right and you nor the others have every found the courage to admit it.

What arrogant nonsense.

ANS: So being right is arrogant nonesense. The arrogance seems to be on the other foot here. An unwillingness to admit error for clearly you are refusing to state that the problem as introduced and argued was for the two observers measuring as stated and the conclusion I claimed was that Brian Greene was in error.

Now to settle this. Was Brian Greene's example flawed or not.

Do you claim that an observer crawling along the circumference and an observer crawling along the radius will get different measurements ? Yes or No.

But that is ok, as long as we keep the facts of the case correct others know who was right.

Indeed.

ANS: Yes.

To repeat "How does the distance change to the rocket pilot for whom you claim distance is changed, when his ruler says there was no change?

Which distance are you talking about? Half your problem is that you are never specific enough about reference frames and observers.

ANS: OPPS. You are right. He doesn't see his ruler change but would see distance change.

However, that brings us back to the acceleration question. His calculations for F in F=ma doesn't agree with his view of distance over time because his view of time remains unchanged.

All the double talk in the world can't hide the failure of the concept.

Yeah, yeah, you're smarter than Einstein. Blah blah blah.

ANS: That is funny. I never said any such thing. But as soon as you can answer my question about acceleration with a valid answer then we can clear up who is right here. But hiding behind hollow statements doesn't cut it.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[2inquisitive]

MacM, on your MGR, wouldn't the observer crawling along the radius
be constantly changing his frame of reference because his rate of
acceleration was constantly changing?

 

[MacM]

2Inquisitive,

MacM, on your MGR, wouldn't the observer crawling along the radius
be constantly changing his frame of reference because his rate of
acceleration was constantly changing?

ANS: Yes. Ryans brought GR into the discussion but with regard to the radius. But in either case all such affect also affect the rulers of the observers doing the measurement so that they measure no change.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Please carefully read the following pages:

http://filosofia.dipafilo.unimi.it/~chora/testi2/Speciale4GeneralRelativity.htm

http://kepler.astro.swarthmore.edu/phy111/Week10/node7.html

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node93.html

I can provide many more like this.

<i>ANS: You are giving me whiplash James. Please go back and look at those posts. If you didn't say Pi changed then you most certainly vouched for those that said it did.</i>

I have been very clear. Pi is the number 3.14159... It never changes. The measured ratio of the circumference to the radius of a rotating disc does, however, change.

<i>My statement was correct and Brian Greenes was wrong and it was Ryan's (and others) that argued against my position claiming I didn't understand Relativity. It was they that assumed to much, as you now seem to be doing as well, and claimed I was in error and just didn't understand.</i>

How do you respond to the above links?

<i>End of story. All you guys have to do is admit your errors and move on.</i>

What errors?

<i>At no time have I said the observer stood at the center of the MGR.</i>

Read the above links.

<i>It was clearly stated that he crawled along the radius and he measured the radius (not the circumference). Another crawled along the circumference and measured the circumference (not the radius) and they compared their measurements.</i>

Bingo. Read the links. One of them even has a pretty diagram showing <b>exactly</b> what you describe. And guess what? It comes to the same conclusion as ryans and myself. Take a look and get back to me with an apology.

<i>So being right is arrogant nonesense.</i>

No. Continuing to insist you are right when it has been shown over and over that you are wrong is arrogance. So is failing to admit when an argument is over your head.

<i>Do you claim that an observer crawling along the circumference and an observer crawling along the radius will get different measurements ? Yes or No. </i>

Yes. I agree they will reach the conclusion that the circumference does not equal 2 pi times the radius when the disc is rotating.

<i>However, that brings us back to the acceleration question. His calculations for F in F=ma doesn't agree with his view of distance over time because his view of time remains unchanged.</i>

You're changing the topic again. This is not about forces. I will ignore that for now.

Read the links.

 

[MacM]

James R.,

MacM:

Please carefully read the following pages:

http://filosofia.dipafilo.unimi.it/...lRelativity.htm

The picture above shows a “tornado”; a kind of machine one can find in theme parks. It rotates around its axis and has a (constant) acceleration. Let’s say the tornado is the S’ system and it has radius r. An observer in the S system would of course find a circumference of 2pr but what about an observer in the S’ system? In the drawing we can see two kinds of observers in S’. One observer measures the circumference with a ruler. All the time, the ruler is in the direction of (circular) motion. From the point of special relativity, the ruler now suffers from so-called Lorentz contraction. Let’s say the length of the ruler in S’ equals L’. S’ is the system in which the ruler is at rest. In the language of relativity, L’ is called the ruler’s proper length. According to Lorentz-contraction, the ruler’s length as seen by an observer in S equals

(((Graphics & Formulas don't cut and paste))))

Thus the length of the ruler in the S system is smaller compared to the length in the S’ system. As a consequence, the first observer measures a circumference that is bigger than 2pr! The second observer however, using his ruler to measure the radius of the tornado and therefore holding his ruler always perpendicular to the direction of motion, does not suffer from Lorentz contraction. (Compare it to the situation in the picture on the first page. Only those coordinates in the direction of motion are affected by relativistic curiosities.) He measures a radius r, multiplies by 2p and calculates a circumference of 2pr.

ANS: So show me where an observer ON THE RIM will see the circumference change. This presents the change as viewed from other reference frames.

That was not my complaint. The complaint was that Brian Greene in his "elequent universe" gave the same example but claimed the observer moving along the rim saw the dimension change. How many times do you want me to repeat this scenario? And how many times are you going to ignore what I have said.

It is OK to point out that from S' S's ruler contracts but is not OK to then forget to tell us that this means the circumference must also have contracted and hence S will not measure any change. That is my position and arguement against Brian Greene's statement. Measurements made in the same frame never change.

http://kepler.astro.swarthmore.edu/...ek10/node7.html

Your 2nd link has the observer standing in the middle and not in the motion reference frame.

Same problem. Not on point to my arguement.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physic...www/node93.html

Gravitation curves space and time.

Conversely curved space and time generate effects which are equivalent to gravitational effects. In order to visualize this imagine a world where all things can only move on the surface of a sphere. Consider two beings labeled A and B as in Fig. 7.16, which are fated live on the surface of this sphere. On a bright morning they both start from the equator moving in a direction perpendicular to it (that is, they don't meander about but follow a line perpendicular to the equator).

(((Graphics do not cut and paste)))

Figure 7.16: Two beings moving on a sphere are bound to come closer just as they would under the effects of gravity

Nice concept. Good presentation. they assume the contraction around the circumference but go on to claim it causes gravity. To bad they didn't supply some motive force to cause the beings to move along the surface while they were at it.

All this says if you move in unison along the Meridians of Longitude you will converge at the poles. But that doesn't make me move and that doesn't account for gravity. There is no motive force. Only geometrical convergence at the poles on a sphere.

I can provide many more like this.

Please, Please don't. I can't decide it these links were an insult to me or an insult to you. I guess that depends on how you view the linked material. If you think it is impressive then that is an insult to you. That stuff is kindergarten level.

ANS: You are giving me whiplash James. Please go back and look at those posts. If you didn't say Pi changed then you most certainly vouched for those that said it did.

I have been very clear. Pi is the number 3.14159... It never changes. The measured ratio of the circumference to the radius of a rotating disc does, however, change.

ANS: Yes we have been over this and the standard Pi is a fixed unending number but the Pi being discussed was to show that the ratio between the circumference and the radius changed. I have agreed IF THE MEASUREMENT IS MADE FROM A REFERENCE POINT OTHER THAN THE MOVING FRAME it does. So what is your point?

How do you respond to the above links?

ANS: You have my responses above. Why didn't you respond to the following paragraph?

My statement was correct and Brian Greenes was wrong and it was Ryan's (and others) that argued against my position claiming I didn't understand Relativity. It was they that assumed to much, as you now seem to be doing as well, and claimed I was in error and just didn't understand.

End of story. All you guys have to do is admit your errors and move on.

What errors?

ANS: HAHAHAHA. Are you blind, deaf or both. That is the only choices you are leaving.

You refuse to acknowledge that my claim was against an erroneous presentation claiming that the observer on the moving frame (rim) would measure a change. He does not.

Or do you claim he does? that would be even worse.

At no time have I said the observer stood at the center of the MGR.

Read the above links.

ANS: I did. And so what?[/b][/quote]

It was clearly stated that he crawled along the radius and he measured the radius (not the circumference). Another crawled along the circumference and measured the circumference (not the radius) and they compared their measurements.

Bingo. Read the links. One of them even has a pretty diagram showing exactly what you describe. And guess what? It comes to the same conclusion as ryans and myself. Take a look and get back to me with an apology.

ANS: NO IT DOESN'T IT COMPARES THE MEASUREMENT OF THE OBSERVER AT REST TO CLAIM THE CHANGE IN RATIO, NOT THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE OBSERVERS IN MOTION. IT IS A SHAME INDEED THAT BRIAN GREENE DIDN'T SEE THIS FIRST. SINCE HIS CLAIM WAS IN ERROR AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE NOT THIS. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT YOU REALLY THINK THIS IS THE ISSUE. DO YOU NOT READ WHAT WAS WRITTEN OR ARE YOU JUST HAVING FUN TRYING TO (((MAKE))) ME LOOK STUPID. YOU CONTINUE TO CLAIM I HAVE CLAIMED THINGS THAT I DID NOT AND THEN SHOW THIS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY AGREED WITH.

WHAT IS IT WITH YOU ANYWAY.

So being right is arrogant nonesense.

No. Continuing to insist you are right when it has been shown over and over that you are wrong is arrogance. So is failing to admit when an argument is over your head.

Well "Boy are we ever in agreement here.". None of this is over my head but I really can't tell now if you even understand english.

[/b]Do you claim that an observer crawling along the circumference and an observer crawling along the radius will get different measurements ? Yes or No.

Yes. I agree they will reach the conclusion that the circumference does not equal 2 pi times the radius when the disc is rotating.[/b]

ANS: I'll be damned and I thought you were just being hard headed. You have a serious problem. You have already rightfully stated that the only difference is between reference frames. Now you want to claim that the same frame measures change? That is what Brian Greene did. He was wrong and inspite of your many years of education and credentials you sir are wrong.

And before you pop off once again slandering me just be advised I will be back with e-mail confirmation from a credable source just how wrong you are.

[/b]However, that brings us back to the acceleration question. His calculations for F in F=ma doesn't agree with his view of distance over time because his view of time remains unchanged.

You're changing the topic again. This is not about forces. I will ignore that for now.

Read the links.[/b]

ANS: I did and guess what you failed. I would be glad to start a string on the F-ma disparity.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.