Relativity COTD, sunday
josX
|
__ -a- a->
/ \ | -=>
( o _
\_ / M== /O\ - / \
/ \/ W' | | | |
| / / ====== |====================###====================== |=====
|| / | | ### ____ | |
|\_/| \_/ ### / \ \O/
| | | >|=###==| prr |
| | -b- |______| <-=
|
A long boom is rotated at high speed, it has attached to it two disks
each having a hole, a bullet is shot through the first hole.
Two reference-frames, -a- and -b-, -a- moves with the bullet.
The following contradiction arises:
In reference-frame
-b-, The bullet is lengthcontracted, this does not provide any alterations
in the situation because merely the bullet has shortened. The bullet is
also timedilated, but this does not change the situation either, because
now only the bullet turns slower around it's axis and this doesn't change
the situation either (not necesarily noticably). The bullet travels along
the boom and after a half turn slips through the other hole, which is
large enough to let a normal length bullet at that speed through.
-a-, The bullet passes through the first hole, but the boom has length
contracted, so the other hole is closer, this means that the bulles will
reach the other disk sooner so that the other hole hasn't yet rotated in
place. Also, the time is dilated for the boom, so even without the shortening
of the distance between both holes, the other hole hasn't had the time to
rotate into place.
--
jos
Eric Gisse
>Time-Dilation/lengthcontraction contradiction in relativity:
> |
> __ -a- a->
> / \ | -=>
>( o _
> \_ / M== /O\ - / \
> / \/ W' | | | |
>| / / ====== |====================###====================== |=====
>|| / | | ### ____ | |
>|\_/| \_/ ### / \ \O/
>| | | >|=###==| prr |
>| | -b- |______| <-=
> |
You work so hard on those....sad
>
>A long boom is rotated at high speed, it has attached to it two disks
>each having a hole, a bullet is shot through the first hole.
>Two reference-frames, -a- and -b-, -a- moves with the bullet.
>The following contradiction arises:
No, your ignorance arises like Sol on a nice cloudless morning, rising
high for all to see.
>In reference-frame
>-b-, The bullet is lengthcontracted, this does not provide any alterations
> in the situation because merely the bullet has shortened. The bullet is
> also timedilated, but this does not change the situation either, because
> now only the bullet turns slower around it's axis and this doesn't change
> the situation either (not necesarily noticably). The bullet travels along
> the boom and after a half turn slips through the other hole, which is
> large enough to let a normal length bullet at that speed through.
>-a-, The bullet passes through the first hole, but the boom has length
> contracted, so the other hole is closer, this means that the bulles will
> reach the other disk sooner so that the other hole hasn't yet rotated in
> place. Also, the time is dilated for the boom, so even without the shortening
> of the distance between both holes, the other hole hasn't had the time to
> rotate into place.
Thats a nice little thought experiment. Why dont you do the math for
it and see how it plays out in SR?
josX
Sure:
Distance disks in -b- = 100m
Speed of bullet in -b- = .99c
The time to get to the second disk in -b- = 3.4*10^-7 sec
Mutual Lorentzfactor = 7 (rounded for simplicity)
For the bullet the distance of 100m is contracted to 14 meter.
For the bullet the time runs slower at the disks times 7, if the
disk is taken to be a clock, it will run round slower then it
normally would, so the time-number reached between the first and
second disk passing will be less then normal.
14 meter at .99c takes 4.7*10^-8 sec.
This available timeinterval at the bullet will only be 1/7th at the
disks (as seen from the bullet) = 6.7*10^-9 sec.
3.4*10^-7 sec > 6.7*10^-9 sec, but both are a time-number to be
reached by the second disk in turning, the first as computed from the
disks, the second as computed from the bullet also for the disk.
3.4*10^-7 / 6.7*10^-9 = 51, the bullet gives the second disk 51 times
as little angle-to-turn as the shooting man.
The trick is that both effects work in the same direction, shortening
distance and slowering time for the bullet, they both make that the
bullet reaches the second disk sooner in terms of angle rotated on
the disks. Many potential contradictions have both effects working
against eachother, diffusing the contradiction (or have simultaneity
problems), for instance when a truck drives accross the road, his
engine works slower then it actually should making the wheels skip
forward as seen from the road (in relativity), but from the truck the
road is contracted and the wheels not, so these two effects go in
the same direction then, both making the wheels skip forward (biting
off extra road), even though that is totally silly, it is not a direct
(qualitative) contradiction. Hmm, maybe it is though if you think it
is silly :).
With good contradictions you must isolate length contraction from
mass increase from timedilation (make the other two effects irrelevant
to the issue, like the timedilation on the bullet is irrelevant), or
you must have two effects work in the same direction. If you can invent
a situation where that is the case, you have a promising contradiction.
--
jos
josX
Amendment: the problem remains because the downside of the wheel reaches
the speed of the road, so contracts similarly. That leaves timedilation,
there you have it then: a contradiction isolating time dilation, the
wheels must skip forward in the road's frame because the rpm of the motor
is less then it should be for that speed.
You can also roll a ball accross a surface, the ball should be turning
in unisen with the surface that passes below it, however as sees from
the surface, when the ball speeds up, the time gets dilated at the ball,
so the ball will turn fewer circles then it should.
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
> Time-Dilation/lengthcontraction contradiction in relativity:
> |
> __ -a- a->
> / \ | -=>
> ( o _
> \_ / M== /O\ - / \
> / \/ W' | | | |
> | / / ====== |====================###====================== |=====
> || / | | ### ____ | |
> |\_/| \_/ ### / \ \O/
> | | | >|=###==| prr |
> | | -b- |______| <-=
> |
Your phy sics is not worth shit.
But.....
You missed your calling. You should be a leading ascii artist. Rembrandt
van Ascii?
Bob Kolker
Jem
josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
news:aob7lk$au4$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> The following contradiction arises:
You're barking up the wrong tree JosX. Regardless of the extent to which SR
correctly describes nature, its transformation equations won't produce such
a contradiction. If the bullet and hole coincide from anyone's perspective
then they coincide from everyone's perspective.
josX
You are getting the point, congrats.
--
jos
David Evens
So you admit that you knew that your entire claim was stupidly wrong
from the get-go.
josX
There is a way to have every reference-point produce the same world:
that is by not having that world change weight or length or time or any
other proporty dependant upon the relative motion to that viewpoint of
objects.
To have the bullet pass through the second hole, you must not suddenly
contract the distance to that hole, and you must not suddenly let the disks
rotate slower, when you are using the bullet perspective, that is the mistake.
I have thought a bit about the crucial ".99c" speed, because that changing
in the bullet perspective is the only way to get out of it, but if you have
two rockets flying past eachother, and one has the other at .99c, then the
other has the first also at .99c because the situation is symmetrical, so
it won't work.
--
jos
David Evens
>dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
>>On 13 Oct 2002 20:51:06 GMT, jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>>>"Jem" <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
>>>>josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:aob7lk$au4$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>>> The following contradiction arises:
>>>>
>>>>You're barking up the wrong tree JosX. Regardless of the extent to which SR
>>>>correctly describes nature, its transformation equations won't produce such
>>>>a contradiction. If the bullet and hole coincide from anyone's perspective
>>>>then they coincide from everyone's perspective.
>>>
>>>You are getting the point, congrats.
>>
>>So you admit that you knew that your entire claim was stupidly wrong
>>from the get-go.
>
>There is a way to have every reference-point produce the same world:
>that is by not having that world change weight or length or time or any
>other proporty dependant upon the relative motion to that viewpoint of
>objects.
Or you could just use a coherent explanation, such as SR, instead of
ignoring reality as JosX pretended to above.
>To have the bullet pass through the second hole, you must not suddenly
>contract the distance to that hole, and you must not suddenly let the disks
>rotate slower, when you are using the bullet perspective, that is the mistake.
Yes, the frame of the bullet always has the projections of events
between intervals that it has, regardless of the frame you are looking
at it from.
>I have thought a bit about the crucial ".99c" speed, because that changing
>in the bullet perspective is the only way to get out of it, but if you have
>two rockets flying past eachother, and one has the other at .99c, then the
>other has the first also at .99c because the situation is symmetrical, so
>it won't work.
You will, for the first time in your life, have to work out some math
in order to explain qwhy you want to pretend that reality doesn't
work, as you just claimed.
Jem
I don't think you got my point, but if you want to avoid wasting your time
on COTDs, it's a point you should consider - it's *impossible* for the
transformation equations to describe an event that occurs in one frame and
does not occur in another frame. This fact follows from the math alone and
doesn't depend in any way on whether the underlying theory is or isn't an
accurate description of nature.
Spaceman
>Or you could just use a coherent explanation, such as SR, instead of
>ignoring reality as JosX pretended to above.
Ya sure David,
We will all start agreeing that" "time changing" is the cause
for "time changing" and leave it all as a great circular logic Dogma.
Why don't you get how "wrong" that is?
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
josX
The transformations/math is used in the contradictions, you should have
noticed. Secondly: the thing "mass" is a component of F=m*a, so is
"acceleration" and "force", the math /means/ something. That meaning is
what the contradictions try to show to the hardened relativists (and people
with an open mind).
--
jos
Robert Kolker
josX wrote:
> The transformations/math is used in the contradictions, you should have
> noticed. Secondly: the thing "mass" is a component of F=m*a, so is
> "acceleration" and "force", the math /means/ something. That meaning is
> what the contradictions try to show to the hardened relativists (and people
> with an open mind).
Wake up lad! Newton's physics fail utterly to account for particle
motion in high energy accelerators.
Bob Kolker
Spaceman
>
>Wake up lad! Newton's physics fail utterly to account for particle
>motion in high energy accelerators.
Wake up parrot!
you are missing the "factors"
F=m*a is not wrong.
and only fools think it can be at all.
josX
Like they completely mysteriously can't get over lightspeed, the speed
limit of the universe ? Which proves btw that relativity is an absolutist
theory, because it accepts a certain reference-frame as The Absolute,
from which to define +c and -c speed limits.
Kindof funny that relativity is all against weird aether, but has the
weirdest of all, is all against absolutism, but has it as a major factor.
--
jos
m4r...@xs4a11.nl
> Like they completely mysteriously can't get over lightspeed, the speed
> limit of the universe ? Which proves btw that relativity is an absolutist
> theory, because it accepts a certain reference-frame as The Absolute,
> from which to define +c and -c speed limits.
Dumbass...
Dirk Van de moortel
<m4r...@xs4a11.nl> wrote in message news:aohl14$ps4$1...@news1.xs4all.nl...
That was extremely dumb indeed:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Relabsolute
Title: "Relativity is an absolutist theory"
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
>> In sci.physics josX <jo...@mraha.kitenet.net> wrote:
>> > Like they completely mysteriously can't get over lightspeed, the speed
>> > limit of the universe ? Which proves btw that relativity is an absolutist
>> > theory, because it accepts a certain reference-frame as The Absolute,
>> > from which to define +c and -c speed limits.
>That was extremely dumb indeed:
>
>http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Relab
solute
>Title: "Relativity is an absolutist theory"
Dirk,
you either have a complex logic problem in your head.
Or you are just plain old stupid.
either way.
You are one sad ass troll
Still lying anywhere you can huh?
Of,
is it you really do not understand the above?
Is the speed of light from a source absolutely c?
<LOL>
Do all photons in flight travel "simulaneously"?
<LOL>
you just don't get any of it huh?
that is sad..
I feel sorry for you.
Randy Poe
> Time-Dilation/lengthcontraction contradiction in relativity:
> |
> __ -a- a->
> / \ | -=>
> ( o _
> \_ / M== /O\ - / \
> / \/ W' | | | |
> | / / ====== |====================###====================== |=====
> || / | | ### ____ | |
> |\_/| \_/ ### / \ \O/
> | | | >|=###==| prr |
> | | -b- |______| <-=
> |
>
OK, clearly the man on the left is cooking shishkabobs.
I'm guessing that's the stove in the middle. A little
motor is purring along to rotate the stove.
It seems to be too short to cook the meat at the ends,
though. And what is the pea-shooter for?
- Randy
Arfur Dogfrey
I gather the idea is that if one faulty argument won't work then maybe
365 faulty arguments will?
Arf!
Arfur
Stephen Speicher
> jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
>
> > Time-Dilation/lengthcontraction contradiction in relativity:
> >
>
> I gather the idea is that if one faulty argument won't work then maybe
> 365 faulty arguments will?
>
That is the standard technique of all of these cuckoo birds, but
most others space their nonsense out over a longer period of
time. Never let it be said that josX is not the leader of his
pack.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.02101...@localhost.localdomain...
> On 18 Oct 2002, Arfur Dogfrey wrote:
>
> > jo...@mraha.kitenet.net (josX) wrote:
> >
> > > Time-Dilation/lengthcontraction contradiction in relativity:
> > >
> >
> > I gather the idea is that if one faulty argument won't work then maybe
> > 365 faulty arguments will?
> >
>
> That is the standard technique of all of these cuckoo birds, but
> most others space their nonsense out over a longer period of
> time. Never let it be said that josX is not the leader of his
> pack.
I shouldn't have challenged him in the beginning.
I told him he was merely little shrimp as compared to Seto
and that he had a long way to catch up:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=N4S89.77459$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
I think he has now ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
Well, at least it is nice to know that josX can rise to a
challenge.
Ronald Stepp
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.02101...@localhost.localdomain...
> > I told him he was merely little shrimp as compared to Seto
> > and that he had a long way to catch up:
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=N4S89.77459$8o4....@afrodite.te
lenet-ops.be
> > I think he has now ;-)
> >
>
> Well, at least it is nice to know that josX can rise to a
> challenge.
So can yeast, and it has no spine...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Ronald Stepp" <rstepp.d...@sw.rr.com> wrote in message news:bg9s9.164102$8o3.4...@twister.austin.rr.com...
LOL!
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
:)