Faster or Slower?

It's like me imagining a world in which pigs have wings. Then I construct a thought experiment in which a pig has to reach some cheese on a high shelf in the kitchen. You say the pig can't get the cheese. I say it can, and I show you how it can flap its wings and fly up to the cheese, in a clever thought experiment of my own devising. You complain that pigs don't have wings in the real world, and I tell you that I think the idea that pigs don't have wings is BS concocted by some mad guy that you all like to follow, for some unknown reason. I tell you that anybody who claims pigs don't actually have wings is a crank, and my thought experiment with the cheese proves it.

Can you see the problem with your approach?

This post is gold. Too bad it won't make any difference in the mind of Motor Daddy (Ghost).

Last edited:
This post is gold. Too bad it won't make any difference in the mind of Motor Daddy (Ghost).

Back from vacation already, Neddy? That was a quick year or two! Must have been traveling, what, .99c? LOL...

In Einstein's world, vacation time depends on how fast you go! LOL

How does length contraction work on a gear that is rotating? Does the gear change length so as to be oblong in one direction but not the other? Does length contraction of the tires cause an imbalance? Maybe that's what causes a tire to be out of balance, length contraction? Is a driveshaft shorter?

Does my tachometer give false readings the faster I go, due to time changing but not the number of rotations of the crank? Does the crank still spin at a 2:1 to the cam, or it it more like 2.3:1 at 120 MPH?

So many questions and so few answers!

oh, I forgot, one more:

If I fly real fast past the Earth and the Sun, is that still 1 AU, or is it more like .5 AU?

How does length contraction work on a gear that is rotating?
Same as a gear that is not rotating.
Does the gear change length so as to be oblong in one direction but not the other?
It depends on the frame. From the moving frame the answer is yes.
Does length contraction of the tires cause an imbalance?
No.
Maybe that's what causes a tire to be out of balance, length contraction?
No.
Does my tachometer give false readings the faster I go, due to time changing but not the number of rotations of the crank?
No, your question is implying that you are in the frame of the car, so there is no time dilation or length contraction of your car.
If I fly real fast past the Earth and the Sun, is that still 1 AU, or is it more like .5 AU?
If you are going fast enough it would be .5 AU from your frame.

You ask the same questions year after year and you get the same answers. Will you ever learn... obviously not.

oh, I forgot, one more:

If I fly real fast past the Earth and the Sun, is that still 1 AU, or is it more like .5 AU?

Based on the past few years, safe to say he is not - and if you attempt to answer, his next post will be something like "oh so you are saying that spacecraft don't move? How stupid are you?" His goal is not understanding, but a way to attack you and garner attention for himself.

With Motor Daddy, as with nuclear war, the only way to win is not to play.

The distance between the center of a circle to the outer boundary is the radius. I don't need to tell you how much distance that is, all I have to do is take a stick the same length of that radius, and move it around in different directions from center to edge. I can do that in any direction and the distance is the same.

You come along and try to tell me that in one direction the distance is shorter.
It depends on the motion of the person doing the measuring.
I show you that the stick fits perfectly in all directions.
No you can't.

As I pointed out previously, your thought experiments don't show anything. At best, they derive results that are consistent with a set of initial assumptions that you make about the world. Your particular set of assumptions goes something like this:
1. Space and time are absolute.
2. There is a preferred frame of reference, relative to which all velocities must be measured.
3. Einstein's theory of relativity is BS.
4. There's "really" only one reference frame, and all others are BS.
Starting from those assumptions, your conclusions all follow just fine. There's no length contraction or time dilation. Sticks stay at the same length no matter who observes them. etc. etc.

The problem is that all four of your base assumptions are factually incorrect, as proven by 100+ years of careful experimentation and observation. That's the problem you'll have to overcome before you can start to go about showing anything useful.
You claim that isn't the real world, that there is such a thing as length contraction.

I scratch my head for a while, and then reply to you, BS!
Why should I care? Why should anyone care? My view is supported by 100+ years of confirmatory evidence. Your view is supported by a continued volume of hot air issuing from your mouth and not much else. I think I win.
I did! I invented a unit of measure called a mile. I made a stick the length of that mile. I laid 100 of those sticks end to end, and that is 100 miles.

You come along and tell me that is only 10 miles.
It could be, for an observer moving past your line of sticks.
I lay 100 mile long sticks end to end and show you that is 100 mile long sticks, not 10 mile long sticks.
Actually, it's more like 100 sticks that are each one-tenth of a mile long.
You continue to claim there are only 10 sticks, even when shown to be 100 of them. Count them yourself, there is 100 of them!
It's a sign of desperation when you start to create straw man arguments like this one. Try to get a grip.
What you are claiming is that my 100 apples are only 10 apples. You DO NOT know how to count!
I have made no such claim. You should apologise for telling lies about what I have claimed.

How does length contraction work on a gear that is rotating?
It's complicated for rotating objects like wheels and gears, because different parts of a wheel all have different velocities.

I think this subject is too advanced for you, at the stage you're at. Stick to things moving in straight lines for now. Once we've sorted out your misunderstandings about that, we can move on to rotating objects. Okay?
Does the gear change length so as to be oblong in one direction but not the other?
"Oblong" means kind of rectangular with rounded corners, doesn't it? No, I don't think it would change like that.
Does length contraction of the tires cause an imbalance?
An imbalance in what?
Maybe that's what causes a tire to be out of balance, length contraction?
No. Tires generally travel at speeds that are very small compared to the speed of light. You should perhaps consult a motor mechanic.
Is a driveshaft shorter?
It might be, if it's moving relative to an observer. These are basic questions. Surely you learned the basics of the theory of length contraction 10 years ago. Or didn't you understand it back then?

Why haven't you done anything to clarify your understanding of the basics of the theory of relativity in the past 10 years? I mean, it seems to be a topic you have quite a fixation about. Usually when a person has an interest in something, the first step he or she takes is to try to learn more about it. What's stopping you?
Does my tachometer give false readings the faster I go, due to time changing but not the number of rotations of the crank?
Yes, it does.
Does the crank still spin at a 2:1 to the cam, or it it more like 2.3:1 at 120 MPH?
The gear ratio won't change.
So many questions and so few answers!

However, I think you're wasting your time asking these questions, because without understanding the basics of relativity you won't ever be able to understand why these answers are correct. You have no option but to just take my word for them. That's not an ideal position to be in. (Not that my answers are unreliable.)
If I fly real fast past the Earth and the Sun, is that still 1 AU, or is it more like .5 AU?
How fast is "real fast"?

Of course you could choose a speed such that the distance will be 0.5 AU for you. What is so hard about this? It's basic length contraction. Don't you understand the theory?

"Oblong" means kind of rectangular with rounded corners, doesn't it?
No, "Oblong" is, these days, just a synonym for "rectangle".

A rectangle (literally "right angle") is any shape with 4 sides and with 90-degree angles at the corners. This therefore includes squares and oblongs.
An oblong is a rectangle with adjacent sides of unequal lengths. However, modern usage would simply refer to this as a rectangle, thus differentiating rectangles from squares, which is not technically correct.

A rectangle with rounded edges is most usually just called a "rounded rectangle", afaik, and a rectangle with but with semi-circular ends is called a "stadium".

Actually, it's more like 100 sticks that are each one-tenth of a mile long.

No it is NOT! The sticks are MILE sticks, and there are 100 of them. Mile sticks are BLUE and clearly marked "MILE STICK."

1 AU (the distance between the Earth and the Sun) is 93,000,000 Blue sticks (Mile sticks) laid end to end.

You go flying past the Earth and Sun at .866c and see BLUE STICKS, which you know are MILE STICKS. You count the sticks, and there are 93,000,000 of them. You do some figuring in your head and determine that the distance between the Earth and Sun is 1 AU, because you know 1 AU is 93,000,000 miles, and there are 93,000,000 blue sticks between Earth and Sun.

It is no different than knowing what an apple is, and counting the apples. I claim there are 10 apples, and I count them. You know what 10 apples are and you fly past my apples at .866c and claim there is only 5 apples. That is retarded!

Last edited:
The gear ratio won't change.

Changing the radius of a gear in one direction and not the others means the circumference changed. If the circumference changed the ratio changed. But how could that be, because you can count the rotations of the crank, and count the rotations of the wheel, and the math doesn't add up. EVERYTHING needs to add up, and by claiming one direction is length contracted you are F'n up the math!

You flying past my gear does not change the gear in any way. I can lay two same length sticks perpendicular from each other on the side of a gear and prove the diameter of the gear is THE SAME each way. You fly past and claim it is NOT the SAME each way. You are just flat out WRONG!

No it is NOT! The sticks are MILE sticks, and there are 100 of them. Mile sticks are BLUE and clearly marked "MILE STICK."

1 AU (the distance between the Earth and the Sun) is 93,000,000 Blue sticks (Mile sticks) laid end to end.

You go flying past the Earth and Sun at .866c and see BLUE STICKS, which you know are MILE STICKS. You count the sticks, and there are 93,000,000 of them. You do some figuring in your head and determine that the distance between the Earth and Sun is 1 AU, because you know 1 AU is 93,000,000 miles, and there are 93,000,000 blue sticks between Earth and Sun.
That's absolutely fine, and is correct: physical quantities don't change due to relativity.
However, the dimensional size of the "MILE stick" does appear to, due to relativity. So the measured distance will be different, even though there are still 93m sticks. If you are simply counting the sticks then yeah, that doesn't change. It will still be 93m of them. Therefore if you determine a distance by the number of physical sticks, rather than the length of those sticks, then you'll say 93m miles. If you measure the distance by the length of the sticks, then you'll come up with the distance as it appears to you. There will still be the same number, but the size of each will appear different.
It is no different than knowing what an apple is, and counting the apples. I claim there are 10 apples, and I count them. You know what 10 apples are and you fly past my apples at .866c and claim there is only 5 apples. That is retarded!
It is retarded, but it's not what they're saying happens. Dimensions (space and time) are affected by relativity. Quantities of objects are not.

An imbalance in what?

An imbalance of the wheel. A (theoretical) wheel that is 10" tall and 9" wide will not roll even, it will "jump up and down" as it rotates along the road, because the circumference is not a circle.

So you go flying past the wheel and claim it is 10" tall and 9" wide, but there is no "jumping up and down" of the wheel. Your BS doesn't add up! If the wheel was out of round it would cause a bad vibration, but there is none!

How fast is "real fast"?

12.84@110.68 in the 1/4 mile! Guess what, James? If you fly real fast past a 1/4 mile drag strip it is a 1/4 mile, and the time was 12.84 seconds to travel 1320 feet! Period! You can not produce a timeslip to prove your length contracted BS of this same scenario!

\

...and hey, see the 60', 330' 1/8 times??? MY STUFF ADDS UP, and yours is BS! I have a timeslip and you have Einstein's HOT AIR!

If you measure the distance by the length of the sticks, then you'll come up with the distance as it appears to you. There will still be the same number, but the size of each will appear different.
It is retarded, but it's not what they're saying happens. Dimensions (space and time) are affected by relativity. Quantities of objects are not.

The sticks are MARKED like rulers are. Do you measure distance by some "length" in your head? Of course not! You use MARKED RULERS that measure the distance.

Are you proclaiming that you can go out to the road, look at it, and tell me how long it is, WITHOUT using a marked ruler that is a STANDARD for ALL to use?

You can clearly see there are 93,000,000 MILE STICKS (BLUE), and that is a STANDARD MEASURE.

For you to claim that is only 46,500,000 Blue sticks is outrageous!

...and hey, see the 60', 330' 1/8 times??? MY STUFF ADDS UP, and yours is BS! I have a timeslip and you have Einstein's HOT AIR!
Ah, yes, the wonderfully "fast" 31 m/s.
The impact of relativity would be of the order of 10^(-12) % at those speeds. i.e. the order of a trillionth of a percent.
The sticks are MARKED like rulers are. Do you measure distance by some "length" in your head? Of course not! You use MARKED RULERS that measure the distance.

Are you proclaiming that you can go out to the road, look at it, and tell me how long it is, WITHOUT using a marked ruler that is a STANDARD for ALL to use?

You can clearly see there are 93,000,000 MILE STICKS (BLUE), and that is a STANDARD MEASURE.
As said, and as ignored by you: quantities don't change, but dimensions (length etc) do. If both the distance you're measuring AND the objects you're using to measure it have changed the same %, the overall distance will have changed, but the quantity of objects to measure it will remain the same. Not rocket science, but it seems beyond you.
For you to claim that is only 46,500,000 Blue sticks is outrageous!

Either way, you're proving yourself the troll everyone warned about, so I'll leave you to your... whatever it is.

However, the dimensional size of the "MILE stick" does appear to, due to relativity. So the measured distance will be different, even though there are still 93m sticks.

What do you mean "the measured distance will be different? There is one distance between the Earth and the Sun. That distance is 1 AU. regardless of how fast you travel past that distance, there will be 93,000,000 Blue sticks that fit in that distance.

What are you comparing to to make the statement that it's "different?" For anyone, there is 93,000,000 Blue sticks between the Earth and the Sun! If your vision is f'd up and you see things at different ratios than others, you still see 93,000,000 blue sticks between the Earth and the Sun.

What you are claiming is that the Moon is only 6" wide because at night when there is a full moon I can hold my 6" hand up and compare it to the Moon, and it fits perfect! So the Moon is 6" in diameter!!! LOL

Last edited:
Ah, yes, the wonderfully "fast" 31 m/s.
The impact of relativity would be of the order of 10^(-12) % at those speeds. i.e. the order of a trillionth of a percent.
As said, and as ignored by you: quantities don't change, but dimensions (length etc) do. If both the distance you're measuring AND the objects you're using to measure it have changed the same %, the overall distance will have changed, but the quantity of objects to measure it will remain the same. Not rocket science, but it seems beyond you.