# Relativistic rolling tank

2inq said:
OK, to begin with, there is only one plane of reference on the ground. The laser beams located directly above each other, a single event takes place in spacetime as the various parts of the single tank ( bottom cleat, axel, and top cleat) all break the laser beams simultaneously in the ground frame. This event is when the front of the tank breaks the beams, starting all clocks, both on those on the various parts of the tank and those on the ground. question (1) Do you disagree that the beams were broken simultaneously and the clocks started recording time simultaneously?
Yes, the three clocks start simultaneously in the ground frame. Since they're in the same position in the direction of the tank's travel, they also start simultaneously in the tank frame and the upper tread frame.

As the rear of the tank (the bottom cleat, the rear axel, and a cleat that has rotated directly above the centerline of the rear axel, the last cleat that can trip the laser) passes by the laser beams a second time, all clocks stop recording time. You stated all three ground clocks will record 11.7 ns between events, the breaking of the laser beams twice.
Yes, that's correct.
We measured the length of the tank tread and distance between the axels as 20 feet while the tank was stationary on the ground. A normal person would calculate that the tank passed by the laser beams at 1.73c.
They would be incorrect, since they are calculating speed with tank-frame lengths and ground-frame clocks.
A smarter normal person would place two clocks a known distance aparton the ground (say 20 feet), synchronize those clocks using any method you like, then find the time (23.5ns) it takes the front of the tank to get from one clock to the next.
Then, they can correctly calculate the ground frame speed of the tank: 0.866c.

You say the axel distance and the bottom of the tread has physically shrunk to 10 feet. question (2) How does the ground observer, or the ground clocks, calculate this length? He has no idea how fast the tank is going, he is using his lasers to time the tanks passing. He doesn't know if the tank is travelling at 1000 miles per hour or .999c before he makes his timing measurements.
Using your setup, the ground observer can determine neither the speed of the tank nor its length. They can assume that the length of the tank is the same as it was when at rest, but why would they do that when with a little more preparation they can measure the speed directly and thus deduce the length?

Pete said:
For example:

This is crap. I said:
In the ground frame, a clock on the tread will be off the ground for 82.2ns, it will tick over 11.7ns in that time, move forward 80 feet, and the tank will move forward 70 feet.

Read it carefullly this time. Here it is again, reworded.
In 82.2ns in the ground frame, the tank moves 70 feet and a clock on the top tread will move from the back of the tank to the front (a distance of 80 feet in the ground frame). That clock will tick over 11.7ns in this time.
Pete, that is crap. The only thing recorded in the ground frame is elapse time, the total time it takes for the tank to pass through the laser beams. The clock on the top tank tread can only beat at a certain rate. Any one clock on the tread will only pass through the laser beam once, so how could it possibly record the distance or an elapse time? You state it will be "off the ground" a specific time, but that was not a part of my example, was it? I used the top laser to count cleats as they broke the beam, and the total amount of time required from the first 'break' to the last. I skipped all this stupid shit of an observer 'seeing' what how much time has passed on a clock moving past him a .866c in a different reference frame. Clocks record time, they don't measure distance or look at other clocks. Clocks on the ground record time in that reference frame, and clocks on the tank record time in that reference frame. The tank clocks can only record the elapse time from the instant the front of the tank breaks the ground-based laser beams until the rear of the tank breaks the beams a second time, same as the ground clocks. You can bring the clocks together after they have made their recordings and compare them, but they don't have eyes.

DaleSpam said:
2inquisitive,

It is pretty amusing to watch you here. Do you realize that the only way you have found to generate a paradox here is to selectively ignore parts of SR? The only way you have found to get self-contradictory predictions is to occasionally use SR and occasionally not. Well, congratulations: you have invented and disproved some half-baked 2inq's-special pseudo-relativity theory. Not much of an accomplishment, MacM has been doing it for years.

If you want to prove SR wrong then you need to find a problem with SR, not your pseudo-relativity. But yes, I agree that your pseudo-relativity is wrong.

-Dale

PS Its not as difficult as you are pretending. Plug the numbers into the formulas I gave; I already did all of the hard work for you.
DaleSpam, it is very amusing to watch your antics here. You don't have a clue as to what I am actually stating. All you know how to do is dish out ad hominems. I don't give a shit about 'proving SR wrong', its inadequacies are already known by intelligent physicists.

2inquisitive said:
I don't give a shit about 'proving SR wrong'
Excellent. Then you are right on track. Carry on!

-Dale

PS My post wasn't ad-hominem; quit whining.

2inquisitive said:
Pete, that is crap. The only thing recorded in the ground frame is elapse time, the total time it takes for the tank to pass through the laser beams. The clock on the top tank tread can only beat at a certain rate. Any one clock on the tread will only pass through the laser beam once, so how could it possibly record the distance or an elapse time? You state it will be "off the ground" a specific time, but that was not a part of my example, was it?
I'm just telling you SR says you'd find if you looked, 2inq. Not recording something doesn't mean it didn't happen. .
Clocks record time, they don't measure distance or look at other clocks. Clocks on the ground record time in that reference frame, and clocks on the tank record time in that reference frame. The tank clocks can only record the elapse time from the instant the front of the tank breaks the ground-based laser beams until the rear of the tank breaks the beams a second time, same as the ground clocks. You can bring the clocks together after they have made their recordings and compare them, but they don't have eyes.
Yes, this is all correct, although I don't know why you felt the need to point it out. Do you think that I suggested that clocks have eyes? Are you projecting some stereotype of "SR dogma" onto me?

2inquisitive,
I don't give a shit about 'proving SR wrong', its inadequacies are already known by intelligent physicists.
DaleSpam,
Excellent. Then you are right on track. Carry on!
Thanks, Dale!

ROFL, I guess I deserved that for quoting you out of context

-Dale

In any case, 2inq, I understand exactly what you are saying. I have done the math to understand it. You are the one who can't seem to figure this out or even follow the math when it is laid out plainly for you. I have invited you multiple times to make a little effort, but you prefer your ignorance. What do you expect me to do but poke fun at your pathetic efforts? Every thing you are bringing up now has already been analyzed and dismissed. You, on the other hand, have yet to analyze or understand any of the mathematical solutions I have presented.

-Dale

Dale; when you shape shift between Fitzgerald/Lorentz theory and Einstein Special Relativity theory and then add your own special twist to it, you mix frames far worse than anyone you have ever criticised for that sin.

In previous exchanges with you you have made it obvious in plain response to me on the plainly stated subject, that you do not believe that Special Relativity dictates that the raw observation is the fundamental basis of reality in Special Relativity.

Very well, if you demand the right to take a raw observation and then modify its information and the implications, why cannot any of us do the same thing?

You can never be proved wrong in your adulation of Special Relativity because you will always shift its meaning to whatever meaning will uphold your momentary understanding and exposition of it.

If you really had done the pertinent calculations, you would already be personally aware of the unresolvable paradoxes. You have not done those calculations. Or, you telling us a joke about what your results were.

Last edited:
Pete, I looked hard enough and finally found my dictionary and dusted off most of the spiders and moths. And I also got my computer and its spoell checker to boot up ( with Windows, no small victory ) so I am still waiting for you to spell out all the ways you want to that Special Relativity faces paradoxes but is still perfectly legitimate.

I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that SR says that the top parts of the track are moving at 0.9897c in the ground frame, not 2c.

My attention has been diverted by matters that were even more important than exposing your fraudulent claims about Special Relativity.

Very soon your fraudulent stance concerning your tank's track's velocities will be exposed as the misguided daydream that they are.

My calculations were finished weeks ago. They will be posted here to exhibit fraud that has perpertrated upon the people of this forum.

The anticipation is killing me

Pete said:
The anticipation is killing me

Anticipation is finally serving a good cause.