info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Wheels/Track Paradox
80 views
Skip to first unread message
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 28, 2015, 8:47:14 AM8/28/15
to
Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
before.
A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
light.
I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
this limit.
before.
A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
light.
I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
this limit.
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 28, 2015, 8:51:06 AM8/28/15
to
Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
> before.
>
> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
> light.
To be read "than" instead of "then". I apologise for the inconvenience.
> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
> before.
>
> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
> light.
Double-A
Aug 28, 2015, 3:30:34 PM8/28/15
to
Double-A
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 28, 2015, 3:56:04 PM8/28/15
to
up faster than the speed of light. What speed will the lower point
envelope have?
Lofty Goat
Aug 28, 2015, 5:30:25 PM8/28/15
to
Long before it approaches 1/2C centrifugal forces will destroy it.
There's been a good bit of thought done on the impact of relativity on the
limits of the stiffness and strength of materials. Makes interesting
reading.
xxe...@att.net
Aug 28, 2015, 6:29:53 PM8/28/15
to
Yup. They're almost as stupid as you are. Maybe someone will spend enough time to explain it to you.
Tom Roberts
Aug 28, 2015, 9:22:10 PM8/28/15
to
On 8/28/15 8/28/15 7:47 AM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
> light.
I assume you mean the wheel is rotating along a track without slipping, and by
> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
> light.
"speed of the wheel" you actually mean the speed of its center/axle relative to
the track. I also assume the track is at rest in some inertial frame, and the
wheel's center/axle moves uniformly along the track.
If that's what you mean, you are wrong, and the axle can in principle travel
with any speed less than c relative to the track.
NOTE: I am ignoring all practical considerations, such as the
strength of materials. I consider this a pure gedanken.
You are presumably thinking that if the bottom of the wheel does not slip along
the track, and the axle moves with speed 0.5 c, then the top of the wheel moves
with speed c relative to the tack, and cannot go any faster. That thought
process is WRONG because speeds do NOT add that way.
This is easy to see when looked at from the rest frame of the wheel center/axle.
In this frame all points of the rim have the same speed, and the wheel can
clearly rotate with any speed as long as its rim speed is less than c relative
to this frame. Now pick an instant in time and the point on the rim in contact
with the track -- at that time that point is at rest in the track frame.
Assume the rim moves with speed 0.99 c in the axle frame. Transforming to the
track frame, the bottom of the wheel moves with speed 0, the axle moves with
speed 0.99 c, and the top of the wheel moves with speed 0.9999495 c. All is well.
So the wheel can move relative to the track with any speed less than c.
Tom Roberts
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 29, 2015, 6:08:10 AM8/29/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
> If that's what you mean, you are wrong, and the axle can in principle
> travel with any speed less than c relative to the track.
You are so wrong. Unbelievable. What would be the speed of the top of the
> If that's what you mean, you are wrong, and the axle can in principle
> travel with any speed less than c relative to the track.
say, a one meter radius wheel?
> NOTE: I am ignoring all practical considerations, such as the
strength
> of materials. I consider this a pure gedanken.
Assume whatever you want, including 100% rigidity, as is done frequently
in Relativity.
> You are presumably thinking that if the bottom of the wheel does not
> slip along the track, and the axle moves with speed 0.5 c, then the top
> of the wheel moves with speed c relative to the tack, and cannot go any
> faster. That thought process is WRONG because speeds do NOT add that
> way.
DEMANDS the top moving faster than the speed of light, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
Please remark. This is not about APPEARANCE or Length Contraction and
such. Since a wheel DEMANDS the top of it MOVES FASTER than the wheel
itself (say its center if your wish, but is about the wheel entirely
actually)
> This is easy to see when looked at from the rest frame of the wheel
> center/axle. In this frame all points of the rim have the same speed,
> and the wheel can clearly rotate with any speed as long as its rim speed
> is less than c relative to this frame. Now pick an instant in time and
> the point on the rim in contact with the track -- at that time that
> point is at rest in the track frame.
> Assume the rim moves with speed 0.99 c in the axle frame. Transforming
> to the track frame, the bottom of the wheel moves with speed 0, the axle
> moves with speed 0.99 c, and the top of the wheel moves with speed
> 0.9999495 c. All is well.
that. This is not about the addition of SR speeds.
> So the wheel can move relative to the track with any speed less than c.
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 29, 2015, 6:15:28 AM8/29/15
to
course is a gedanken, what else.
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 29, 2015, 6:34:24 AM8/29/15
to
the opposite is true.
Just stop bullbleeping people, you are insignificant to most of the things.
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 29, 2015, 6:38:12 AM8/29/15
to
Michael Moroney
Aug 29, 2015, 7:24:01 AM8/29/15
to
Margarita Cibulkova <mar...@terraspace.au> writes:
>Tom Roberts wrote:
>> You are presumably thinking that if the bottom of the wheel does not
>> slip along the track, and the axle moves with speed 0.5 c, then the top
>> of the wheel moves with speed c relative to the tack, and cannot go any
>> faster. That thought process is WRONG because speeds do NOT add that
>> way.
>Does not matter how it adds. The inherent REQUIREMENTS of the wheel
>DEMANDS the top moving faster than the speed of light, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
Your supposed "REQUIREMENTS" implicitly assumes that the relativistic
velocities add linearly, like they do at low speed.
>Please remark. This is not about APPEARANCE or Length Contraction and
>such. Since a wheel DEMANDS the top of it MOVES FASTER than the wheel
>itself (say its center if your wish, but is about the wheel entirely
>actually)
And it does. Do the math for what the velocity of the top of the wheel
is if the axle is moving at 0.5c, or any other speed you choose.
>> This is easy to see when looked at from the rest frame of the wheel
>> center/axle. In this frame all points of the rim have the same speed,
>> and the wheel can clearly rotate with any speed as long as its rim speed
>> is less than c relative to this frame. Now pick an instant in time and
>> the point on the rim in contact with the track -- at that time that
>> point is at rest in the track frame.
>Completely nonsense.
No, that is how wheels work.
>> Assume the rim moves with speed 0.99 c in the axle frame. Transforming
>> to the track frame, the bottom of the wheel moves with speed 0, the axle
>> moves with speed 0.99 c, and the top of the wheel moves with speed
>> 0.9999495 c. All is well.
>NO, since as already said. The wheel DEMANDS the top moving faster than
>that. This is not about the addition of SR speeds.
Yes it is. Your supposed "DEMAND" implicitly assumes that the speed must
be 0.99c + 0.99c = 1.98c. Relativistic velocities don't add like that.
Now go change your nym again.
>Tom Roberts wrote:
>> You are presumably thinking that if the bottom of the wheel does not
>> slip along the track, and the axle moves with speed 0.5 c, then the top
>> of the wheel moves with speed c relative to the tack, and cannot go any
>> faster. That thought process is WRONG because speeds do NOT add that
>> way.
>Does not matter how it adds. The inherent REQUIREMENTS of the wheel
>DEMANDS the top moving faster than the speed of light, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
velocities add linearly, like they do at low speed.
>Please remark. This is not about APPEARANCE or Length Contraction and
>such. Since a wheel DEMANDS the top of it MOVES FASTER than the wheel
>itself (say its center if your wish, but is about the wheel entirely
>actually)
is if the axle is moving at 0.5c, or any other speed you choose.
>> This is easy to see when looked at from the rest frame of the wheel
>> center/axle. In this frame all points of the rim have the same speed,
>> and the wheel can clearly rotate with any speed as long as its rim speed
>> is less than c relative to this frame. Now pick an instant in time and
>> the point on the rim in contact with the track -- at that time that
>> point is at rest in the track frame.
>Completely nonsense.
>> Assume the rim moves with speed 0.99 c in the axle frame. Transforming
>> to the track frame, the bottom of the wheel moves with speed 0, the axle
>> moves with speed 0.99 c, and the top of the wheel moves with speed
>> 0.9999495 c. All is well.
>NO, since as already said. The wheel DEMANDS the top moving faster than
>that. This is not about the addition of SR speeds.
be 0.99c + 0.99c = 1.98c. Relativistic velocities don't add like that.
Now go change your nym again.
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 29, 2015, 7:50:40 AM8/29/15
to
Michael Moroney wrote:
>>Please remark. This is not about APPEARANCE or Length Contraction and
>>such. Since a wheel DEMANDS the top of it MOVES FASTER than the wheel
>>itself (say its center if your wish, but is about the wheel entirely
>>actually)
>
> And it does. Do the math for what the velocity of the top of the wheel
> is if the axle is moving at 0.5c, or any other speed you choose.
No, you do it for me. Assume that axle at 0.9c, just to make sure.
>>Please remark. This is not about APPEARANCE or Length Contraction and
>>such. Since a wheel DEMANDS the top of it MOVES FASTER than the wheel
>>itself (say its center if your wish, but is about the wheel entirely
>>actually)
>
> And it does. Do the math for what the velocity of the top of the wheel
> is if the axle is moving at 0.5c, or any other speed you choose.
pcard...@volcanomail.com
Aug 29, 2015, 9:33:05 AM8/29/15
to
john
Aug 29, 2015, 10:59:20 AM8/29/15
to
I don't get how the rim anywhere
can be going faster than the axle.
A rim one foot in circumference will
turn once every time the axle travels
a foot down the track. Equal.
can be going faster than the axle.
A rim one foot in circumference will
turn once every time the axle travels
a foot down the track. Equal.
Photon Beam
Aug 29, 2015, 11:03:08 AM8/29/15
to
Shut up.
"Margarita Cibulkova" blithered impotently in message
news:mrs6aa$msj$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
Give it a rest.
"Margarita Cibulkova" blithered impotently in message
news:mrs6aa$msj$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
Give it a rest.
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Aug 29, 2015, 2:49:11 PM8/29/15
to
Tom wrote...
What speed would a point on the wheel rim move relative to an observor
who stands at a distance above the track that is equal to the wheels diameter?
(Assume they are in front of the wheels path and looking at the wheel come towards
them, and,..that the observor is not moving relative to the ground)
> So the wheel can move relative to the track with any speed less than c.
If as you say, the axel is moving at .99 c in the ground frame;
What speed would a point on the wheel rim move relative to an observor
who stands at a distance above the track that is equal to the wheels diameter?
(Assume they are in front of the wheels path and looking at the wheel come towards
them, and,..that the observor is not moving relative to the ground)
Tom Roberts
Aug 29, 2015, 2:51:13 PM8/29/15
to
On 8/29/15 8/29/15 5:08 AM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> If that's what you mean, you are wrong, and the axle can in principle
>> travel with any speed less than c relative to the track.
>
> You are so wrong. Unbelievable.
No. Apparently YOU cannot believe it, but that does not make it wrong, it makes
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> If that's what you mean, you are wrong, and the axle can in principle
>> travel with any speed less than c relative to the track.
>
> You are so wrong. Unbelievable.
YOU wrong.
> What would be the speed of the top of the
> say, a one meter radius wheel?
imagine a one meter wheel if you wish.)
>> NOTE: I am ignoring all practical considerations, such as the
> strength
>> of materials. I consider this a pure gedanken.
>
> Does NOT really matter you ignore this or not.
>> You are presumably thinking that if the bottom of the wheel does not
>> slip along the track, and the axle moves with speed 0.5 c, then the top
>> of the wheel moves with speed c relative to the tack, and cannot go any
>> faster. That thought process is WRONG because speeds do NOT add that
>> way.
>
> Does not matter how it adds. The inherent REQUIREMENTS of the wheel
> DEMANDS the top moving faster than the speed of light, which is IMPOSSIBLE.
c in the rest frame of the center/axle, the center/axle moves with speed 0.99 c
relative to the track, and the top of the wheel moves at speed 0.9999495 c
relative to the track.
It DOES matter how speeds add.
The basic property of rotating wheels is that all points on the rim move with
the same speed relative to the frame in which the center/axle is at rest. Given
the speed of the center/axle relative to the track, we do not know the speed of
the top until we COMPUTE it. That's what I did.
> Please remark. This is not about APPEARANCE or Length Contraction and
> such.
discussion. Please pay attention to what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN. Don't add
fantasies of your own like this.
> Since a wheel DEMANDS the top of it MOVES FASTER than the wheel
> itself (say its center if your wish, but is about the wheel entirely
> actually)
And no, it is not about the "wheel entirely", because different points of the
wheel move differently: IT IS ROTATING. So to be accurate I must specify its
center (or axle).
YOU apparently don't care about accuracy. That's a MAJOR part
of your problem. And it seems so pervasive for you that you
don't even realize it....
>> This is easy to see when looked at from the rest frame of the wheel
>> center/axle. In this frame all points of the rim have the same speed,
>> and the wheel can clearly rotate with any speed as long as its rim speed
>> is less than c relative to this frame. Now pick an instant in time and
>> the point on the rim in contact with the track -- at that time that
>> point is at rest in the track frame.
>
> Completely nonsense.
another hobby. That is directly relevant and is indeed how wheels behave.
The basic property of rotating wheels is that all points on the rim move with
the same speed relative to the frame in which the center/axle is at rest. Given
the speed of the center/axle relative to the track, we do not know the speed of
the top until we COMPUTE it. That's what I did.
>> Assume the rim moves with speed 0.99 c in the axle frame. Transforming
>> to the track frame, the bottom of the wheel moves with speed 0, the axle
>> moves with speed 0.99 c, and the top of the wheel moves with speed
>> 0.9999495 c. All is well.
>
> NO, since as already said. The wheel DEMANDS the top moving faster than
> that.
as I said.
> This is not about the addition of SR speeds.
The basic property of rotating wheels is that all points on the rim move with
the same speed relative to the frame in which the center/axle is at rest. Given
the speed of the center/axle relative to the track, we do not know the speed of
the top until we COMPUTE it. That's what I did, and the answer (of course) is
less than c.
>> So the wheel can move relative to the track with any speed less than c.
>
> No, absolutely.
[asked to compute the speed of the top]
> No, you do it for me. Assume that axle at 0.9c, just to make sure.
I see. You are unable to do the math. How sad -- it indicates you do not really
know enough about SR to say anything about it (that is also clear from your
writings around here).
It's straightforward, once you know which math to apply (which seems to be your
basic problem): When the axle moves at 0.9 c relative to the track, and the rim
of the wheel does not slip on the track, the top of the wheel moves relative to
the track with speed:
(0.9 c + 0.9 c) / (1 + 0.9 * 0.9) = 0.9945 c
Have you not noticed that I always write A LOT more text than you? A MAJOR part
of your problem is that you do not specify things precisely enough. Relativity
is subtle, and to understand subtle concepts you MUST be precise in thought and
word. Your writing falls far short of what is needed -- you MUST improve your
game in order to understand this stuff.
Tom Roberts
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 29, 2015, 3:27:34 PM8/29/15
to
Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Does not matter how it adds. The inherent REQUIREMENTS of the wheel
>> DEMANDS the top moving faster than the speed of light, which is
>> IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> Not true. As my example showed, with the wheel rotating with a rim speed
> of 0.99 c in the rest frame of the center/axle, the center/axle moves
> with speed 0.99 c relative to the track, and the top of the wheel moves
> at speed 0.9999495 c relative to the track.
Then that wheel will not rotate. Unmitigatedly. Which is okay, so we can
>> Does not matter how it adds. The inherent REQUIREMENTS of the wheel
>> DEMANDS the top moving faster than the speed of light, which is
>> IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> Not true. As my example showed, with the wheel rotating with a rim speed
> of 0.99 c in the rest frame of the center/axle, the center/axle moves
> with speed 0.99 c relative to the track, and the top of the wheel moves
> at speed 0.9999495 c relative to the track.
close this little discussion about wheels in Relativity.
You are talking about appearances. I do not.
reber g=emc^2
Aug 29, 2015, 3:39:09 PM8/29/15
to
Alie...@gmail.com
Aug 29, 2015, 3:55:50 PM8/29/15
to
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-7, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> >> Does not matter how it adds. The inherent REQUIREMENTS of the wheel
> >> DEMANDS the top moving faster than the speed of light, which is
> >> IMPOSSIBLE.
> >
> > Not true. As my example showed, with the wheel rotating with a rim speed
> > of 0.99 c in the rest frame of the center/axle, the center/axle moves
> > with speed 0.99 c relative to the track, and the top of the wheel moves
> > at speed 0.9999495 c relative to the track.
>
> Then that wheel will not rotate.
Yes, it will...
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> >> Does not matter how it adds. The inherent REQUIREMENTS of the wheel
> >> DEMANDS the top moving faster than the speed of light, which is
> >> IMPOSSIBLE.
> >
> > Not true. As my example showed, with the wheel rotating with a rim speed
> > of 0.99 c in the rest frame of the center/axle, the center/axle moves
> > with speed 0.99 c relative to the track, and the top of the wheel moves
> > at speed 0.9999495 c relative to the track.
>
> Then that wheel will not rotate.
> Unmitigatedly.
...because the wheel was specified to be rolling without slipping along the track, remember? Since the contact patch is moving from the center's frame, the center is therefore moving in the track frame because the contact patch is *defined* as moving along the track.
That's what rolling *means*.
> Which is okay, so we can
> close this little discussion about wheels in Relativity.
> You are talking about appearances. I do not.
Mark L. Fergerson
Double-A
Aug 29, 2015, 4:05:52 PM8/29/15
to
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-7, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
Double-A
Margarita Cibulkova
Aug 29, 2015, 4:18:17 PM8/29/15
to
HVAC
Aug 29, 2015, 4:19:39 PM8/29/15
to
On 8/29/2015 3:39 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
>
> The wheel not being a perfect circle would had great wobbler,and fly
> apart. Rhis goes well with my "wobble Theory: TreBert
Oh ya... That makes sense. On planet Mongo. That's where Bert is from.
>
>
> The wheel not being a perfect circle would had great wobbler,and fly
> apart. Rhis goes well with my "wobble Theory: TreBert
He's a Mongoloid.
--
"Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?"
https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6
john
Aug 29, 2015, 5:38:56 PM8/29/15
to
The wheel travels one circumference in
the same time that the axle travels the
same.
the same time that the axle travels the
same.
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Aug 29, 2015, 9:18:15 PM8/29/15
to
Tom wrote...
one gets if a wheel is rolled along a flat surface.
I put a vertical backdrop of card behind a wheel so as to mark points
of the rim and axle as the wheel rolls along the ground.
I then marked onto the vertical backdrop, the positions of the center point of the axle
and one point at the top rim of the wheel.
To clarify how much distance is travelled by the point on the rim I mark a point on the
backdrop ahead of the wheels direction of travel and above the ground by an amount equal
to the diameter of the wheel and call it my "observor".
(This observor does not move relative to the ground frame )
I then rolled the wheel 1/12 rotation on the ground. And marked the new positions
of both the axle and the top point. Although there is margin of error because
this is a tabletop experiment, the top point on the rim clearly moves much farther
along the vertical backdrop then the center point of the axle. Almost twice the distance.
In other words the rim at one point in the rotation is travelling almost double
the distance of axle in the "ground" frame in the same amount of time.
(I get this by measuring how far the point at the top end of the wheel is from my
"observor" at both the beginning and the end of my 1/12 rotation. And then measure how
far apart the center points of the first and last axle positions are.)
>The basic property of rotating wheels is that all points on the rim move with the same speed relative to the frame in which the center/axle is at rest. Given >the speed of the center/axle relative to the track, we do not know the speed of the top until we COMPUTE it. That's what I did, and the answer (of course) is >less than c.
Fascinating your calculations. But they dont seem to match the results
one gets if a wheel is rolled along a flat surface.
I put a vertical backdrop of card behind a wheel so as to mark points
of the rim and axle as the wheel rolls along the ground.
I then marked onto the vertical backdrop, the positions of the center point of the axle
and one point at the top rim of the wheel.
To clarify how much distance is travelled by the point on the rim I mark a point on the
backdrop ahead of the wheels direction of travel and above the ground by an amount equal
to the diameter of the wheel and call it my "observor".
(This observor does not move relative to the ground frame )
I then rolled the wheel 1/12 rotation on the ground. And marked the new positions
of both the axle and the top point. Although there is margin of error because
this is a tabletop experiment, the top point on the rim clearly moves much farther
along the vertical backdrop then the center point of the axle. Almost twice the distance.
In other words the rim at one point in the rotation is travelling almost double
the distance of axle in the "ground" frame in the same amount of time.
(I get this by measuring how far the point at the top end of the wheel is from my
"observor" at both the beginning and the end of my 1/12 rotation. And then measure how
far apart the center points of the first and last axle positions are.)
noTthaTguY
Aug 30, 2015, 12:13:37 AM8/30/15
to
wobbly
Sylvia Else
Aug 30, 2015, 12:44:19 AM8/30/15
to
On 28/08/2015 10:47 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
> before.
>
> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
> light.
>
> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>
> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
> this limit.
>
It's your paradox. You should show your math. We'll show[*] you where
> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
> before.
>
> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
> light.
>
> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>
> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
> this limit.
>
it's wrong.
Sylvia.
[*] Or at least, tell you. "Show you" implies that you'll understand,
and that would be a triumph of hope over experience.
Sylvia.
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 5:53:08 AM8/30/15
to
pnalsing wrote:
>> <sigh>. If you *really* meant that type of wheel (train wheel), then
>> yes, the part below the rail does go backwards. But that was not the
>> topic. Topic was about a "wheel" rolling on the ground, meaning that no
>> parts are below the ground...
>
> Well, the title of this post is "The Wheels/Track Paradox", which seems
> to imply a railroad car wheel, running on a track.
>
> In my initial post I clearly said "If you are talking about the wheel of
> a railroad vehicle"... my point was, no matter how fast this wheel
> travels down the track, poart of it is always going backwards wrt the
> track, a simple enough concept.
Ok pnalsing, you were right. Thanks, I never saw the train wheel like
that. It must undergo enormous stress at any instance of time. Of course
this is just another bottleneck, beside the above. If you want trains to
go faster, you need something else, different from wheels. Good point.
>> <sigh>. If you *really* meant that type of wheel (train wheel), then
>> yes, the part below the rail does go backwards. But that was not the
>> topic. Topic was about a "wheel" rolling on the ground, meaning that no
>> parts are below the ground...
>
> Well, the title of this post is "The Wheels/Track Paradox", which seems
> to imply a railroad car wheel, running on a track.
>
> In my initial post I clearly said "If you are talking about the wheel of
> a railroad vehicle"... my point was, no matter how fast this wheel
> travels down the track, poart of it is always going backwards wrt the
> track, a simple enough concept.
Ok pnalsing, you were right. Thanks, I never saw the train wheel like
that. It must undergo enormous stress at any instance of time. Of course
this is just another bottleneck, beside the above. If you want trains to
go faster, you need something else, different from wheels. Good point.
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 6:04:09 AM8/30/15
to
Dono, wrote:
> On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 5:47:13 AM UTC-7, Margarita Cibulkova
> c. Of course, it will desintegrate way before it approaches c.
> The proof is trivial.
I doubt it. As I can see it right now, the top of the wheel is an
attenuator. And as kefisher already said, the top will revolve lesser than
the axle. I can be wrong of course. (as the appearances are weaker then
the demands). However the appearances may become demands, but still I'm
not convinced.
> On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 5:47:13 AM UTC-7, Margarita Cibulkova
> wrote:
>> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
>> before.
>> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
>> light.
>> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
>> this limit.
>
> This is false, theoretically the wheel can speed up to any speed UP to
>> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
>> before.
>> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
>> light.
>> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
>> this limit.
>
> c. Of course, it will desintegrate way before it approaches c.
> The proof is trivial.
I doubt it. As I can see it right now, the top of the wheel is an
attenuator. And as kefisher already said, the top will revolve lesser than
the axle. I can be wrong of course. (as the appearances are weaker then
the demands). However the appearances may become demands, but still I'm
not convinced.
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 6:21:35 AM8/30/15
to
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Aug 30, 2015, 8:35:26 AM8/30/15
to
John wrote...
revolution but at variable speeds.
Whats odd is: Both the original author of the thread and respondents like Tom ( baez)
Roberts seem to suggest that even in non relativistic models its not possible for
a rim to travel faster than c even when the axle is, at or near c.
What hilites their stupidity is they waffle on about how these so called relativistic effects
actually are *observed*. Whereas in fact the only observed data on this ( like fizeau)
show that in fact relativistic effects are not manifested in any observations.
One has to artificially alter the data with mathematical transformations to
support the delusional assumptions made by relativity. Hence Roberts idiotic calculation
in an earlier post where he clearly reduces the observed speed of the rim by mathematically
dividing the observed speed by an imagined amount to make sure that it magically never
reaches c. I hope that the american university that hosts his and Baez misinformation , cuts
them from their budget.
> The wheel travels one circumference in the same time that the axle travels the same.
I think the argument was that the rim travels the same distance in the same time in one
revolution but at variable speeds.
Whats odd is: Both the original author of the thread and respondents like Tom ( baez)
Roberts seem to suggest that even in non relativistic models its not possible for
a rim to travel faster than c even when the axle is, at or near c.
What hilites their stupidity is they waffle on about how these so called relativistic effects
actually are *observed*. Whereas in fact the only observed data on this ( like fizeau)
show that in fact relativistic effects are not manifested in any observations.
One has to artificially alter the data with mathematical transformations to
support the delusional assumptions made by relativity. Hence Roberts idiotic calculation
in an earlier post where he clearly reduces the observed speed of the rim by mathematically
dividing the observed speed by an imagined amount to make sure that it magically never
reaches c. I hope that the american university that hosts his and Baez misinformation , cuts
them from their budget.
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 9:34:46 AM8/30/15
to
Dono, wrote:
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 3:29:05 AM UTC-7, ignorantrav...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 5:13:30 AM UTC-5, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
>> > ignorantravingcrackpot wrote:
>> >
>> > > Is there *ANY* reason whatsoever that the OP can present that would
>> > > limit the speed of such a rotating wheel to less than 99.999% of
>> > > the speed of light?
>> > >
>> > > Does the OP understand that his/her question is not worthy of being
>> > > considered a paradox?
>> >
>> > Hey ignorant, reread the text. As I can see it was "up to max the
>> > half of the speed of light". You didn't catch the idea, not even now.
>> > You are so inflammatory stupid.
>>
>> My point is that the solution to this non-paradox originates simply
>> from the relativistic composition of velocities, that the added junk
>> about the wheel rolling on the road or on a track is nothing more than
>> cruft.
>>
>>
> Correct
>
>
>> If you have a wheel with a rim rotation speed of 0.0001 c measured in
>> the moving frame traveling at a speed of 0.99995 c relative to to the
>> observer, then the observer sees the "top" of the wheel traveling, not
>> at 1.00005 c, but at 0.99995001 c.
>>
>>
> Trivially correct. But the OP point was a DIFFERENT one, he concluded
> that the axle cannot move at more than 0.5 because the Galilean addition
> of velocities would make the top point of the wheel move at more than
> 1c.
>
>> There is no paradox here, nor was there any paradox in the original
>> post, which was expressed in terms of a ROLLING wheel rather than a
>> simply SPINNING wheel.
>
> True.
He is of course incorrect. Is not about revolving wheels, but
translatory rotation. Please visit this site for further information
http://www.wiley.com/college/halliday/0470469080/simulations/fig11_04/fig11_04.html
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 3:29:05 AM UTC-7, ignorantrav...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 5:13:30 AM UTC-5, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
>> > ignorantravingcrackpot wrote:
>> >
>> > > Is there *ANY* reason whatsoever that the OP can present that would
>> > > limit the speed of such a rotating wheel to less than 99.999% of
>> > > the speed of light?
>> > >
>> > > Does the OP understand that his/her question is not worthy of being
>> > > considered a paradox?
>> >
>> > Hey ignorant, reread the text. As I can see it was "up to max the
>> > half of the speed of light". You didn't catch the idea, not even now.
>> > You are so inflammatory stupid.
>>
>> My point is that the solution to this non-paradox originates simply
>> from the relativistic composition of velocities, that the added junk
>> about the wheel rolling on the road or on a track is nothing more than
>> cruft.
>>
>>
> Correct
>
>
>> If you have a wheel with a rim rotation speed of 0.0001 c measured in
>> the moving frame traveling at a speed of 0.99995 c relative to to the
>> observer, then the observer sees the "top" of the wheel traveling, not
>> at 1.00005 c, but at 0.99995001 c.
>>
>>
> Trivially correct. But the OP point was a DIFFERENT one, he concluded
> that the axle cannot move at more than 0.5 because the Galilean addition
> of velocities would make the top point of the wheel move at more than
> 1c.
>
>> There is no paradox here, nor was there any paradox in the original
>> post, which was expressed in terms of a ROLLING wheel rather than a
>> simply SPINNING wheel.
>
> True.
He is of course incorrect. Is not about revolving wheels, but
translatory rotation. Please visit this site for further information
http://www.wiley.com/college/halliday/0470469080/simulations/fig11_04/fig11_04.html
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 11:35:42 AM8/30/15
to
in this mouse-button clicking exercise, to elucidate.
noTthaTguY
Aug 30, 2015, 11:36:16 AM8/30/15
to
yeah, Fizeau est l'homme
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 11:58:18 AM8/30/15
to
Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>
>> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
>> before.
>>
>> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
>> light.
>
> To be read "than" instead of "then". I apologise for the inconvenience.
> Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>
>> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
>> before.
>>
>> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
>> light.
>
>
>> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>>
>> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
>> this limit.
I take the liberty to invite everyone, those that got this gedanken wrong,
>> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>>
>> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
>> this limit.
to go push the "Combined" button to see how a wheel perform inside its
domain of applicability. Regards.
http://www.wiley.com/college/halliday/0470469080/simulations/fig11_04/fig11_04.html
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 12:00:36 PM8/30/15
to
Reginald Ehrett wrote:
>>> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>>> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
>>> this limit.
>
> I take the liberty to invite everyone, those that got this gedanken wrong,
> to go push the "Combined" button to see how a wheel perform inside its
> domain of applicability. Regards.
> http://www.wiley.com/college/halliday/0470469080/simulations/fig11_04/fig11_04.html
It comes out clearly, that the top of the wheel cannot move slower than
>>> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>>> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
>>> this limit.
>
> I take the liberty to invite everyone, those that got this gedanken wrong,
> to go push the "Combined" button to see how a wheel perform inside its
> domain of applicability. Regards.
> http://www.wiley.com/college/halliday/0470469080/simulations/fig11_04/fig11_04.html
the required motion imposed by the axle at the center of the wheel.
Lofty Goat
Aug 30, 2015, 1:18:56 PM8/30/15
to
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 10:15:22 +0000, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Lofty Goat wrote:
>
> Lofty Goat wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 12:47:09 +0000, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>>
>>> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
>>> before.
>>>
>>> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed
>>> of light.
>>>
>>
>>> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
>>> before.
>>>
>>> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed
>>> of light.
>>>
>>> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>>>
>>> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded
>>> by this limit.
>>
>>>
>>> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded
>>> by this limit.
>>
>> A *rolling* wheel can maximally....
>>
>> Long before it approaches 1/2C centrifugal forces will destroy it.
>>
>> There's been a good bit of thought done on the impact of relativity on
>> the limits of the stiffness and strength of materials. Makes
>> interesting reading.
>
> Assume 100% rigidity, goat. As often done in gedanken experiments. Of
> course is a gedanken, what else.
No can do. In a completely rigid material phonons will move at infinite
>>
>> Long before it approaches 1/2C centrifugal forces will destroy it.
>>
>> There's been a good bit of thought done on the impact of relativity on
>> the limits of the stiffness and strength of materials. Makes
>> interesting reading.
>
> Assume 100% rigidity, goat. As often done in gedanken experiments. Of
> course is a gedanken, what else.
speed, exceeding that of light, propagating information instantaneously.
I wish.
Moreover, complete rigidity does not presuppose infinite tensile strength,
which we'd need in the material from which we make the notional wheel.
That said, I already answered: a *rolling* wheel can't exceed 1/2 C.
--
Goat
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 1:22:09 PM8/30/15
to
Dono, wrote:
>> > One can easily show that u'>V and u'>u.
>>
>> Is this sufficeient?
>>
> Yes. In addition, one can easily show that, contrary to your OP claim,
> u'<c.
Of course not. You are not paying attention. The question is whether the
wheel will rotate or not. I say it will not, disregard your relativistic
addition of the speeds.
Let's go numerical. Assume your V = 0.6c, hence your u = 1.2c Convince me.
>> > One can easily show that u'>V and u'>u.
>>
>> Is this sufficeient?
>>
> Yes. In addition, one can easily show that, contrary to your OP claim,
> u'<c.
Of course not. You are not paying attention. The question is whether the
wheel will rotate or not. I say it will not, disregard your relativistic
addition of the speeds.
Let's go numerical. Assume your V = 0.6c, hence your u = 1.2c Convince me.
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 1:24:58 PM8/30/15
to
Lofty Goat wrote:
>> Assume 100% rigidity, goat. As often done in gedanken experiments. Of
>> course is a gedanken, what else.
>
> No can do. In a completely rigid material phonons will move at infinite
> speed, exceeding that of light, propagating information instantaneously.
>
> I wish.
>
> Moreover, complete rigidity does not presuppose infinite tensile
> strength,
> which we'd need in the material from which we make the notional wheel.
>
> That said, I already answered: a *rolling* wheel can't exceed 1/2 C.
We agree. As I can see it right now that wheel cannot exceed the ½c.
>> Assume 100% rigidity, goat. As often done in gedanken experiments. Of
>> course is a gedanken, what else.
>
> No can do. In a completely rigid material phonons will move at infinite
> speed, exceeding that of light, propagating information instantaneously.
>
> I wish.
>
> Moreover, complete rigidity does not presuppose infinite tensile
> strength,
> which we'd need in the material from which we make the notional wheel.
>
> That said, I already answered: a *rolling* wheel can't exceed 1/2 C.
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 1:36:00 PM8/30/15
to
Dono, wrote:
>> Of course not. You are not paying attention. The question is whether
>> the wheel will rotate or not. I say it will not, disregard your
>> relativistic addition of the speeds.
>>
>> Let's go numerical. Assume your V = 0.6c, hence your u = 1.2c Convince
>> me.
>
> You are a bigger cretin than you pretend to be:
>> Of course not. You are not paying attention. The question is whether
>> the wheel will rotate or not. I say it will not, disregard your
>> relativistic addition of the speeds.
>>
>> Let's go numerical. Assume your V = 0.6c, hence your u = 1.2c Convince
>> me.
>
>
> [tex]\frac{u+V}{1+uV/c^2}<c[/tex] for ANY, u, V.
>
> Simple algebra, silly troll.
You are simply compose the two speeds, troll. Nobody asked you to do that.
Show your results for the top speed assuming the wheel at 0.6c. I must
insist, that wheel cannot rotate, since that type of rotation requires
first order PROPORTIONALITY.
Invented long time ago, people still don't understand their wheels.
Tom Roberts
Aug 30, 2015, 2:57:01 PM8/30/15
to
On 8/30/15 8/30/15 12:24 PM, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
>> That said, I already answered: a *rolling* wheel can't exceed 1/2 C.
>
> We agree. As I can see it right now that wheel cannot exceed the ½c.
You are both wrong. The wheel's center/axle can move relative to the track with
>> That said, I already answered: a *rolling* wheel can't exceed 1/2 C.
>
> We agree. As I can see it right now that wheel cannot exceed the ½c.
any speed less than c, including speeds > ½c. The top of the wheel never moves
faster than c relative to the track, but it does always move faster than the
center/axle.
Yes, the wheel rotates -- that's easy to see by looking at it from the rest
frame of the center/axle.
I posted an analysis which I won't bother to repeat. You guys who assume
velocities simply add are just plain wrong.
Tom Roberts
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 3:20:52 PM8/30/15
to
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 30, 2015, 3:27:13 PM8/30/15
to
Dono, wrote:
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:51:49 AM UTC-7, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
>> Dono, wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:04:37 AM UTC-7, Reginald Ehrett
>> > wrote:
>> >> >> > The rim rotates at [tex]\vec{u}=\vec{/omega} \cross
>> >> >> > \vec{r}[/tex]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Reduce the problem to 1d,
>> >> >
>> >> > You pretend to be an idiot in order to show how smart you are.
>> >> > Turns out that you ARE a genuine idiot. So, you need to go back to
>> >> > fucking yourself.
>> >>
>> >> I see, you start snipping for no reason.
>> >
>> > Go fuck "Margarita", "Reginald".
>>
>> But I can be wrong of course.
>
> You ARE wrong, "Margarita"
>
>>I'm not certified so to speak.
>
> So, STFU.
Hey stup fox, those things are rigidly connected, as for instance in the
train/tunnel paradox. Hence, the entire wheel is to considered rigid as a
train or as a tunnel. You are foxing stopped, no doubts about that.
Surprisingly so big relativists like yourself around here can't see the
problem. Kefischer and Lofty Goat can. Reveals one thing. The relativists
are not familiar in Physics and Laboratories. Amateurs. They read a book
and believe they can master everything. LOL.
> On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 11:51:49 AM UTC-7, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
>> Dono, wrote:
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Dono, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Show your results for the top speed assuming the wheel at
>> >> >> >> 0.6c.
>> >> >> >> I must insist, that wheel cannot rotate, since that type of
>> >> >> >> rotation requires first order PROPORTIONALITY.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Cretin. Incurable.
>> >>
>> >> >> >> Show your results for the top speed assuming the wheel at
>> >> >> >> 0.6c.
>> >> >> >> I must insist, that wheel cannot rotate, since that type of
>> >> >> >> rotation requires first order PROPORTIONALITY.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The rim rotates at [tex]\vec{u}=\vec{/omega} \cross
>> >> >> > \vec{r}[/tex]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Reduce the problem to 1d,
>> >> >
>> >> > You pretend to be an idiot in order to show how smart you are.
>> >> > Turns out that you ARE a genuine idiot. So, you need to go back to
>> >> > fucking yourself.
>> >>
>> >> I see, you start snipping for no reason.
>> >
>> > Go fuck "Margarita", "Reginald".
>>
>> But I can be wrong of course.
>
> You ARE wrong, "Margarita"
>
>>I'm not certified so to speak.
>
> So, STFU.
Hey stup fox, those things are rigidly connected, as for instance in the
train/tunnel paradox. Hence, the entire wheel is to considered rigid as a
train or as a tunnel. You are foxing stopped, no doubts about that.
Surprisingly so big relativists like yourself around here can't see the
problem. Kefischer and Lofty Goat can. Reveals one thing. The relativists
are not familiar in Physics and Laboratories. Amateurs. They read a book
and believe they can master everything. LOL.
Sam Wormley
Aug 30, 2015, 4:43:34 PM8/30/15
to
On 8/30/15 4:53 AM, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
> Thanks, I never saw the train wheel like
> that. It must undergo enormous stress at any instance of time. Of course
> this is just another bottleneck, beside the above. If you want trains to
> go faster, you need something else, different from wheels. Good point.
Stresses? The effect is observer dependent.
> Thanks, I never saw the train wheel like
> that. It must undergo enormous stress at any instance of time. Of course
> this is just another bottleneck, beside the above. If you want trains to
> go faster, you need something else, different from wheels. Good point.
--
sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.
Odd Bodkin
Aug 31, 2015, 9:43:57 AM8/31/15
to
On 8/29/2015 9:59 AM, john wrote:
> I don't get how the rim anywhere
> can be going faster than the axle.
> A rim one foot in circumference will
> turn once every time the axle travels
> a foot down the track. Equal.
>
John, just think a minute. In one quarter of a turn, the spot on the rim
that is right now right above the axle is going to have to be ahead of
the axle by one wheel radius, so it HAS to be going faster than the axle
to pull ahead of it.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> I don't get how the rim anywhere
> can be going faster than the axle.
> A rim one foot in circumference will
> turn once every time the axle travels
> a foot down the track. Equal.
>
John, just think a minute. In one quarter of a turn, the spot on the rim
that is right now right above the axle is going to have to be ahead of
the axle by one wheel radius, so it HAS to be going faster than the axle
to pull ahead of it.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
HVAC
Aug 31, 2015, 10:32:30 AM8/31/15
to
On 8/31/2015 9:43 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/29/2015 9:59 AM, john wrote:
>> I don't get how the rim anywhere
>> can be going faster than the axle.
>> A rim one foot in circumference will
>> turn once every time the axle travels
>> a foot down the track. Equal.
>>
>
> John, just think a minute. In one quarter of a turn, the spot on the rim
> that is right now right above the axle is going to have to be ahead of
> the axle by one wheel radius, so it HAS to be going faster than the axle
> to pull ahead of it.
John could us a course in basic physics. Personally, I would like to see
> On 8/29/2015 9:59 AM, john wrote:
>> I don't get how the rim anywhere
>> can be going faster than the axle.
>> A rim one foot in circumference will
>> turn once every time the axle travels
>> a foot down the track. Equal.
>>
>
> John, just think a minute. In one quarter of a turn, the spot on the rim
> that is right now right above the axle is going to have to be ahead of
> the axle by one wheel radius, so it HAS to be going faster than the axle
> to pull ahead of it.
him take this course in prison. But that is beside the point.
Most people here on this topic seem to disregard the relativistic
effects. This leads to errors. Obviously.
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 31, 2015, 2:43:32 PM8/31/15
to
HVAC wrote:
>> John, just think a minute. In one quarter of a turn, the spot on the
>> rim that is right now right above the axle is going to have to be ahead
>> of the axle by one wheel radius, so it HAS to be going faster than the
>> axle to pull ahead of it.
>
>
> John could us a course in basic physics. Personally, I would like to see
> him take this course in prison. But that is beside the point.
>
> Most people here on this topic seem to disregard the relativistic
> effects.
> This leads to errors. Obviously.
The wheel is rigid. Idiot. Same way the train is rigid in that tunnel,
>> John, just think a minute. In one quarter of a turn, the spot on the
>> rim that is right now right above the axle is going to have to be ahead
>> of the axle by one wheel radius, so it HAS to be going faster than the
>> axle to pull ahead of it.
>
>
> John could us a course in basic physics. Personally, I would like to see
> him take this course in prison. But that is beside the point.
>
> Most people here on this topic seem to disregard the relativistic
> effects.
> This leads to errors. Obviously.
which is also rigid. Buy a brain.
HVAC
Aug 31, 2015, 2:58:50 PM8/31/15
to
On 8/31/2015 2:43 PM, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
>
>> John could us a course in basic physics. Personally, I would like to see
>> him take this course in prison. But that is beside the point.
>>
>> Most people here on this topic seem to disregard the relativistic
>> effects. This leads to errors. Obviously.
>
> The wheel is rigid. Idiot. Same way the train is rigid in that tunnel,
> which is also rigid.
Your homosexual fantasy aside, why you so mad bro?
>
>> John could us a course in basic physics. Personally, I would like to see
>> him take this course in prison. But that is beside the point.
>>
>> Most people here on this topic seem to disregard the relativistic
>> effects. This leads to errors. Obviously.
>
> The wheel is rigid. Idiot. Same way the train is rigid in that tunnel,
> which is also rigid.
Alie...@gmail.com
Aug 31, 2015, 3:36:40 PM8/31/15
to
Mark L. Fergerson
Reginald Ehrett
Aug 31, 2015, 3:56:52 PM8/31/15
to
nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> > I posted an analysis which I won't bother to repeat. You guys who
>> > assume velocities simply add are just plain wrong.
>>
>> Those things are rigidly connected. So I guess we have no choice.
>
> What do you think "rigid" means?
His "analysis" shows up to be 100% wrong. You two are so stupid you both
>> > I posted an analysis which I won't bother to repeat. You guys who
>> > assume velocities simply add are just plain wrong.
>>
>> Those things are rigidly connected. So I guess we have no choice.
>
> What do you think "rigid" means?
fumigate.
reber g=emc^2
Aug 31, 2015, 4:30:00 PM8/31/15
to
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 1, 2015, 5:45:48 AM9/1/15
to
Sylvie wrote..
>[*] Or at least, tell you. "Show you" implies that you'll understand, and that would be a triumph of hope over experience.
Im aware that you can make watertight predictions using your maths. The advantage
being that these gedankens can never be tested as measuring positions near light
speed hasnt the technology currently. But one thing you could test for is heat.
If the rim cant almost double its speed to 'keep up' with its position under relativity,
then as Tom hinted, those points of the rim atoms will bunch up. If the rim is at c and
needs to be near 2c classically to prevent bunching, then under a relativistic
model the bunching wil create great densities at one point of the wheel. Maybe
what? ... 1/2 a million atoms where one should be. That should give great heat, maybe
even fusion
This means in the gedanken that in the ground frame the wheel is generating great heat but
in the axle frame no heat. So which alternative does relativity predict?
> It's your paradox. You should show your math. We'll show[*] you where it's wrong.
S>Sylvia.
>[*] Or at least, tell you. "Show you" implies that you'll understand, and that would be a triumph of hope over experience.
being that these gedankens can never be tested as measuring positions near light
speed hasnt the technology currently. But one thing you could test for is heat.
If the rim cant almost double its speed to 'keep up' with its position under relativity,
then as Tom hinted, those points of the rim atoms will bunch up. If the rim is at c and
needs to be near 2c classically to prevent bunching, then under a relativistic
model the bunching wil create great densities at one point of the wheel. Maybe
what? ... 1/2 a million atoms where one should be. That should give great heat, maybe
even fusion
This means in the gedanken that in the ground frame the wheel is generating great heat but
in the axle frame no heat. So which alternative does relativity predict?
0 new messages