Apples = Whales !
Hayek
wrote in message
http://groups.google.com/groups?&hl=en&selm=pan.2002.12.13....@nospammissthisout.myrealbox.com
Titanpoint:
"
I'm not doing anything except bringing to your attention
that your equation of 'inertia' (which means 'The
tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency
of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in
straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight
line unless acted on by an outside force.') with time
('A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in
apparently irreversible succession from the past through
the present to the future') is like equating apples with
whales.
If you have expertise in your chosen specialism you
should at least be able to not make such gross errors as
these.
You declare that a subject is your specialism. You then
equate specialism with expertise without going through
all that nasty mathematical theory stuff suggests, to
me, a mind unfettered by the need to make logical or
physical sense.
......
"
Let us equate Apples with Whales.
We take a disc, mass m 10 kilograms at an angular
velocity w of 50 rad/s. The disc is an idealized disc
with all its mass at the edge, radius r 1 meter.
We calculate the angular momentum A of the disc :
A= m * r^2 * w
10 kg * 1 m^2 * 50 rad/s = 500 m^2 kg rad/s
We now apply a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
we do not care wether the gamma factor is induced by
speed or gravitational field, we have mass increase, and
we do not care if this is real mass increase , adding of
atoms, atoms growing warts or muscles, or inertial mass
increase.
1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500/12 => x= 41.66 rad/sec
We now calculate the time dilation :
(50 rad/sec) /1.2 = 41.66 rad/sec
It seems in this case that
whales are round edible things that grow on trees,
and apples are many ton weighing mammals that swim in
the sea.
In case you are missing the (titan-)point again :
Inertial increase = time dilation = clock retardation.
A 'distorted' idea for Speicher, unintelligible for
Franz Heymann, "can't diddle with this" for Socks, and
last but not least 'Apples and Whales' for Titanpoint
plus some niceties like 'gross error' or an expression
such as this "without going through all that nasty
mathematical theory stuff suggests, to me, a mind
unfettered by the need to make logical or physical sense.."
I bet Titanpoints theory on cosmology will be
interesting, maybe it has even time travel in it.
Physics by reciting mantras on inertia and time, not
knowing they are the same. Feynman laughs in his grave.
And the shoe also fits for the lot of you whining
"Mach's Principle has nothing to do with GR".
I am still waiting for the first person to understand my
statement, "a clock is an inertiameter".
Statement not to be used without mentioning its
originator, Herbert D. Van Hoof, aka Hayek.
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
titanpoint
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3DFC4CBF...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
> An excerpt what Titanpoint:
> wrote in message
>
Does anyone else want to have a go before I demonstrate that Hayek can't do
math?
>
> In case you are missing the (titan-)point again :
> Inertial increase = time dilation = clock retardation.
In which case, since you can't see what you done wrong in the above
calculation, you're unlikely to spot that the conclusion is false.
>
> A 'distorted' idea for Speicher, unintelligible for
> Franz Heymann, "can't diddle with this" for Socks, and
> last but not least 'Apples and Whales' for Titanpoint
> plus some niceties like 'gross error' or an expression
> such as this "without going through all that nasty
> mathematical theory stuff suggests, to me, a mind
> unfettered by the need to make logical or physical sense.."
>
> I bet Titanpoints theory on cosmology will be
> interesting, maybe it has even time travel in it.
> Physics by reciting mantras on inertia and time, not
> knowing they are the same. Feynman laughs in his grave.
>
> And the shoe also fits for the lot of you whining
> "Mach's Principle has nothing to do with GR".
>
> I am still waiting for the first person to understand my
> statement, "a clock is an inertiameter".
> Statement not to be used without mentioning its
> originator, Herbert D. Van Hoof, aka Hayek.
...also known as the 21st Century Galileo.
Hayek
titanpoint wrote:
> Does anyone else want to have a go before I demonstrate that Hayek can't do
> math?
Go ahead and demontrate *again* that you do not know
what your talking about.
>>I am still waiting for the first person to understand my
>>statement, "a clock is an inertiameter".
>>Statement not to be used without mentioning its
>>originator, Herbert D. Van Hoof, aka Hayek.
>>
>
> ...also known as the 21st Century Galileo.
Well, Thank you...
titanpoint
> wrote in message
>
In other words a thin bangle. Since the bangle is 1 m in radius, the
tangential velocity is v = 50 m/s
> We calculate the angular momentum A of the disc :
>
> A= m * r^2 * w
>
> 10 kg * 1 m^2 * 50 rad/s = 500 m^2 kg rad/s
Fascinating but irrelevant.
>
> We now apply a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
> we do not care wether the gamma factor is induced by
> speed or gravitational field, we have mass increase, and
> we do not care if this is real mass increase , adding of
> atoms, atoms growing warts or muscles, or inertial mass
> increase.
Woah!
A gamma factor like that is ridiculous!
Gamma = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Therefore gamma cannot be greater than 1. Where the heck did you get 1.2
from?
If v=50, gamma = sqrt(1-(50/300000)^2), so at this speed the time dilation
of a caesium atom on the bangle is around sqrt(1-2.77x10^-8) = 0.9999999861,
so the caesium atom clock runs slightly slower than a reference clock
situated at the centre of rotation.
The mass increase of the bangle would be :
m-zero/gamma - m-zero= 10/0.9999999861 -10 = 10.000000138 kg
or roughly a 138 micrograms.
>
> 1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500/12 => x= 41.66 rad/sec
Wrong.
You were calculating mass remember? Mass is in kilograms, not rad/sec
>
> We now calculate the time dilation :
>
> (50 rad/sec) /1.2 = 41.66 rad/sec
Wrong.
Time dilation is measured in seconds, not rad/sec
>
> It seems in this case that
> whales are round edible things that grow on trees,
> and apples are many ton weighing mammals that swim in
> the sea.
It appears that you cannot do simple math when supplied with the right
equations.
>
> In case you are missing the (titan-)point again :
> Inertial increase = time dilation = clock retardation.
In case anyone is still awake, the (titan -)point appears to be that you
have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> A 'distorted' idea for Speicher, unintelligible for
> Franz Heymann, "can't diddle with this" for Socks, and
> last but not least 'Apples and Whales' for Titanpoint
> plus some niceties like 'gross error' or an expression
> such as this "without going through all that nasty
> mathematical theory stuff suggests, to me, a mind
> unfettered by the need to make logical or physical sense.."
I think I'll repeat that:
Hayek appears to have "a mind unfettered by the need to make logical or
physical sense.."
>
> I bet Titanpoints theory on cosmology will be
> interesting, maybe it has even time travel in it.
> Physics by reciting mantras on inertia and time, not
> knowing they are the same. Feynman laughs in his grave.
Actually it doesn't. But then what's a straw man argument between friends?
>
> And the shoe also fits for the lot of you whining
> "Mach's Principle has nothing to do with GR".
Sign me up for the Whiner's Club
>
> I am still waiting for the first person to understand my
> statement, "a clock is an inertiameter".
So am I
> Statement not to be used without mentioning its
> originator, Herbert D. Van Hoof, aka Hayek.
We shall not forget, and if Dirk is around, we shall immortalize this for
all time as a warning for future generations.
TP
Franz Heymann
> wrote in message
>
58...@nospammissthisout.myrealbox.com
Impossible in your example
> or gravitational field,
Impossible in your example
we have mass increase, and
> we do not care if this is real mass increase ,
If it is not a real mass increase, it is not a mass increase at all.
> adding of
> atoms,
This is a possibility which I will discuss later.
> atoms growing warts or muscles
I take it that these two are sad attempts at being funny.
, or inertial mass
> increase.
From what cause?
The only way I could see of realistically increasing the mass of your
ring is if it has a flat top, and you gradually let sand drop on to
it, (landing on the ring with zero initial initial speed, just to
make things easier). The surface of the ring is supposed to be tacky
so that the sand ends up with the same angular velocity as the disc.
>
> 1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500/12 => x= 41.66 rad/sec
>
> We now calculate the time dilation :
>
> (50 rad/sec) /1.2 = 41.66 rad/sec
>
There is no time dilation in your example..
All you have shown in a vague sort of way is how the conservation of
angular momentum manifests itself in this example. I have not
bothered to check your arithmetic in detail.
Time dilation is a phenomenon which is predicted by SR..
Your rotating ring is moving far, far too small to show any
relativistic effects.
The slowing down of your ring is very real, and follows from non
relativistic Newtonian mechanics.
You are a dunce.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"titanpoint" <titan...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uvp471k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Gamma = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
No.
>
> Therefore gamma cannot be greater than 1. Where the heck did you get
1.2
> from?
Back to square 1
Franz Heymann
Hayek
titanpoint wrote:
Conservation of Angular momentum is irrelevant..
>
>>We now apply a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
>>we do not care wether the gamma factor is induced by
>>speed or gravitational field, we have mass increase, and
>>we do not care if this is real mass increase , adding of
>>atoms, atoms growing warts or muscles, or inertial mass
>>increase.
>>
>
> Woah!
>
> A gamma factor like that is ridiculous!
>
> Gamma = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Someone well versed in relativistic calculations
would spot immediately that I meant the reciprocal of
the gamma factor.
>
> Therefore gamma cannot be greater than 1. Where the
heck did you get 1.2
> from?
>
> If v=50, gamma = sqrt(1-(50/300000)^2), so at this
speed the time dilation
> of a caesium atom on the bangle is around
sqrt(1-2.77x10^-8) = 0.9999999861,
> so the caesium atom clock runs slightly slower than a
reference clock
> situated at the centre of rotation.
>
> The mass increase of the bangle would be :
> m-zero/gamma - m-zero= 10/0.9999999861 -10 =
10.000000138 kg
>
> or roughly a 138 micrograms.
>
>
>>1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500/12 => x= 41.66 rad/sec
>>
>
> Wrong.
>
> You were calculating mass remember? Mass is in
kilograms, not rad/sec
>
I was calculating angular momentum.
then saying that angular momentum stays the same,
r^2 * m/gamma * x = A
When 'cutting' an intermediate step,
an unfortunate error occured, "/12" was not erased.
I should have corrected it immediately in a follow-up
post, but since the result was correct, I thought you
super mathematicians would immediately spot this, or
fall in the trap. Of course, TP fell in the trap.
Let me correct the error,
(I reasoned : let's use a gamma that gives 20 % mass
increase, pretty basic if you ask me)
1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500
=> x=500/12 ( the step I erased not completely)
=> x= 41.66 rad/sec
I was definitely not calculating mass,
but the angular velocity w wich I replaced with x.
This is high school math at the level of a 15 year old.
>>We now calculate the time dilation :
>>
>>(50 rad/sec) /1.2 = 41.66 rad/sec
>>
>
> Wrong.
>
> Time dilation is measured in seconds, not rad/sec
I skipped a few steps, but I assure you the result is
correct.
If the result is not correct that would overthrow
relativity.
Angular velocity is nothing else than an other
expression of rotations per second. It is another
notation of Hertz which is the reciprocal of time. You
should really get some basic physics lessons. And I mean
*really basic*. I dare even state that you are worse
than Josx.
>
>>It seems in this case that
>>whales are round edible things that grow on trees,
>>and apples are many ton weighing mammals that swim in
>>the sea.
>>
>
> It appears that you cannot do simple math when
supplied with the right
> equations.
It appears that you do not have any notion of what your
doing, not even the simplest concepts. I thought it was
bad, but it is absolutely hopeless.
>>In case you are missing the (titan-)point again :
>>Inertial increase = time dilation = clock retardation.
>>
>
> In case anyone is still awake, the (titan -)point
appears to be that you
> have no idea what you're talking about.
The question is "when are you going to wake up" ?
>
>>A 'distorted' idea for Speicher, unintelligible for
>>Franz Heymann, "can't diddle with this" for Socks, and
>>last but not least 'Apples and Whales' for Titanpoint
>>plus some niceties like 'gross error' or an expression
>>such as this "without going through all that nasty
>>mathematical theory stuff suggests, to me, a mind
>>unfettered by the need to make logical or physical
sense.."
>>
>
> I think I'll repeat that:
>
> Hayek appears to have "a mind unfettered by the need
to make logical or
> physical sense.."
It makes your foolishness all the worse....
>
>>I bet Titanpoints theory on cosmology will be
>>interesting, maybe it has even time travel in it.
>>Physics by reciting mantras on inertia and time, not
>>knowing they are the same. Feynman laughs in his grave.
>>
>
> Actually it doesn't. But then what's a straw man
argument between friends?
>>And the shoe also fits for the lot of you whining
>>"Mach's Principle has nothing to do with GR".
>>
>
> Sign me up for the Whiner's Club
There is a long waiting list...
>>I am still waiting for the first person to understand my
>>statement, "a clock is an inertiameter".
>>
>
> So am I
You can still be first.
>
>>Statement not to be used without mentioning its
>>originator, Herbert D. Van Hoof, aka Hayek.
>>
>
>
> We shall not forget, and if Dirk is around, we shall
immortalize this for
> all time as a warning for future generations.
Please do.
I hope that :
a) you realize what a fool you made of yourself
b) don' judge yourself too harshly for that.
c) realize that you should open your mind,
and not call anybody else moron unless you are
absolutely sure of yourself and absolutely sure that
what the other guy says is bogus, and cannot be due to a
misunderstanding.
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> You are a dunce.
Coming from you,
it is a compliment.
Hayek
Hayek
Hayek wrote:
>
> Someone well versed in relativistic calculations
> would spot immediately that I meant the reciprocal of
> the gamma factor.
Gamma is defined as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
You made me doubt it for a moment.
So you can have a gamma of 1.2
titanpoint
"Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3DFCACA1...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
Yep. It's an unnecessary step. You still screwed up though.
>
>
> >
> >>We now apply a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
> >>we do not care wether the gamma factor is induced by
> >>speed or gravitational field, we have mass increase, and
> >>we do not care if this is real mass increase , adding of
> >>atoms, atoms growing warts or muscles, or inertial mass
> >>increase.
> >>
> >
> > Woah!
> >
> > A gamma factor like that is ridiculous!
> >
> > Gamma = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
>
> Someone well versed in relativistic calculations
> would spot immediately that I meant the reciprocal of
> the gamma factor.
Someone well versed in relativistic calculations AND BEEN psychic should
have spotted that.
I'm not letting this go, Hayek. Even if we allow gamma = 1/1.2 = 0.8333 this
implies that the tangential speed is 165831 m/s !!!
WRONG WRONG WRONG. Which part of "WRONG" don't you comprehend?
>
> >
> > Therefore gamma cannot be greater than 1. Where the
> heck did you get 1.2
> > from?
> >
> > If v=50, gamma = sqrt(1-(50/300000)^2), so at this
> speed the time dilation
> > of a caesium atom on the bangle is around
> sqrt(1-2.77x10^-8) = 0.9999999861,
> > so the caesium atom clock runs slightly slower than a
> reference clock
> > situated at the centre of rotation.
> >
> > The mass increase of the bangle would be :
> > m-zero/gamma - m-zero= 10/0.9999999861 -10 =
> 10.000000138 kg
> >
> > or roughly a 138 micrograms.
> >
> >
> >>1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500/12 => x= 41.66 rad/sec
> >>
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > You were calculating mass remember? Mass is in
> kilograms, not rad/sec
> >
>
>
> I was calculating angular momentum.
> then saying that angular momentum stays the same,
But the gamma you used implies a much higher tangential velocity and hence
angular momentum. Still wrong.
>
> r^2 * m/gamma * x = A
>
> When 'cutting' an intermediate step,
> an unfortunate error occured, "/12" was not erased.
> I should have corrected it immediately in a follow-up
> post, but since the result was correct, I thought you
> super mathematicians would immediately spot this, or
> fall in the trap. Of course, TP fell in the trap.
>
Yeah right, I fell into the trap of finding the *deliberate mistake*? Do you
really think I'm that stupid?
You screwed up. Just admit it.
> Let me correct the error,
> (I reasoned : let's use a gamma that gives 20 % mass
> increase, pretty basic if you ask me)
So now m/m-zero = 1.2 ? Nope, the calculation is still wrong. The answer is
that either the bangle is rotating much too slowly for the mass increase or
the mass increase implies a tangential velocity around half the speed of
light. There are no other possibilities.
You are simply wrong, Hayek.
>
> 1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500
> => x=500/12 ( the step I erased not completely)
> => x= 41.66 rad/sec
>
> I was definitely not calculating mass,
> but the angular velocity w wich I replaced with x.
> This is high school math at the level of a 15 year old.
It's still wrong Hayek. Your calculation is WRONG.
>
>
> >>We now calculate the time dilation :
> >>
> >>(50 rad/sec) /1.2 = 41.66 rad/sec
> >>
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > Time dilation is measured in seconds, not rad/sec
>
>
> I skipped a few steps, but I assure you the result is
> correct.
Yes but only in alternate universe where relativists are psychic. You didn't
miss any steps, YOU SCREWED UP.
> If the result is not correct that would overthrow
> relativity.
Much more likely is that you simply screwed up the calculation. Relativity
is fine and doesn't need my defence.
>
> Angular velocity is nothing else than an other
> expression of rotations per second. It is another
> notation of Hertz which is the reciprocal of time. You
> should really get some basic physics lessons. And I mean
> *really basic*. I dare even state that you are worse
> than Josx.
Really? What did you establish (other than you can't run through a simple
problem in relativity without making elementary mistakes in algebra)?
>
> >
> >>It seems in this case that
> >>whales are round edible things that grow on trees,
> >>and apples are many ton weighing mammals that swim in
> >>the sea.
> >>
> >
> > It appears that you cannot do simple math when
> supplied with the right
> > equations.
>
>
> It appears that you do not have any notion of what your
> doing, not even the simplest concepts. I thought it was
> bad, but it is absolutely hopeless.
Really? So my calculation was wrong? Did I justify what the value of gamma
was or not? Are my calculations correct or not?
If you have no idea what the difference is between a correct calculation and
a demonstrably wrong one then there is no hope. There is no justification
for the gamma value of 1.2 or 1/1.2. IT'S SIMPLY WRONG.
>
>
> >>In case you are missing the (titan-)point again :
> >>Inertial increase = time dilation = clock retardation.
> >>
> >
> > In case anyone is still awake, the (titan -)point
> appears to be that you
> > have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> The question is "when are you going to wake up" ?
I woke up at 9 this morning. But I smelt the air in your calculation and it
smelled strongly of bullshit.
>
> >
> >>A 'distorted' idea for Speicher, unintelligible for
> >>Franz Heymann, "can't diddle with this" for Socks, and
> >>last but not least 'Apples and Whales' for Titanpoint
> >>plus some niceties like 'gross error' or an expression
> >>such as this "without going through all that nasty
> >>mathematical theory stuff suggests, to me, a mind
> >>unfettered by the need to make logical or physical
> sense.."
> >>
> >
> > I think I'll repeat that:
> >
> > Hayek appears to have "a mind unfettered by the need
> to make logical or
> > physical sense.."
>
>
> It makes your foolishness all the worse....
Keep talking. Future generations are watching.
>
> >
> >>I bet Titanpoints theory on cosmology will be
> >>interesting, maybe it has even time travel in it.
> >>Physics by reciting mantras on inertia and time, not
> >>knowing they are the same. Feynman laughs in his grave.
> >>
> >
> > Actually it doesn't. But then what's a straw man
> argument between friends?
>
>
> >>And the shoe also fits for the lot of you whining
> >>"Mach's Principle has nothing to do with GR".
> >>
> >
> > Sign me up for the Whiner's Club
>
> There is a long waiting list...
Then I'm proud to join such illustrious fellow travellers.
>
> >>I am still waiting for the first person to understand my
> >>statement, "a clock is an inertiameter".
> >>
> >
> > So am I
>
> You can still be first.
Nope. I pass. I'm still waiting in the Whiner's Club membership queue.
>
> >
> >>Statement not to be used without mentioning its
> >>originator, Herbert D. Van Hoof, aka Hayek.
> >>
> >
>
> >
> > We shall not forget, and if Dirk is around, we shall
> immortalize this for
> > all time as a warning for future generations.
>
> Please do.
I guarantee it
>
> I hope that :
>
> a) you realize what a fool you made of yourself
> b) don' judge yourself too harshly for that.
> c) realize that you should open your mind,
> and not call anybody else moron unless you are
> absolutely sure of yourself and absolutely sure that
> what the other guy says is bogus, and cannot be due to a
> misunderstanding.
>
a) I made a fool of myself for correctly working out the mass increase and
the time dilation? I should be lucky to make a fool of myself more often.
b) I'll try to get over the shame of getting the correct answer.
c) My mind is neither open nor closed but at the critical point between
them. That way I can keep abreast of new ideas while rejecting nonsense
whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head.
TP
Hayek
titanpoint wrote:
> I'm not letting this go, Hayek. Even if we allow
> gamma = 1/1.2 = 0.8333 this implies that the
> tangential speed is 165831 m/s !!!
>
> WRONG WRONG WRONG. Which part of "WRONG" don't you
> comprehend?
When you pronounce it.
I am not calculating gamma on the rotating disc.
I am putting the disc in a gravitational field with
gamma (which I used correctly btw) 1.2 OR in a space
ship that has a speed that causes gamma to be 1.2 ,
I specifically stated that.
>>>
>>> Therefore gamma cannot be greater than 1. Where
>>> the
>> heck did you get 1.2
I defined it that way :
Hayek:
"
We now apply a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
we do not care wether the gamma factor is induced by
speed or gravitational field,
"
> But the gamma you used implies a much higher
> tangential velocity and hence angular momentum.
> Still wrong.
No, if you cared to read how what the experiment is about.
>>
>> When 'cutting' an intermediate step, an
>> unfortunate error occured, "/12" was not erased. I
>> should have corrected it immediately in a
>> follow-up post, but since the result was correct,
>> I thought you super mathematicians would
>> immediately spot this, or fall in the trap. Of
>> course, TP fell in the trap.
>>
>>
> Yeah right, I fell into the trap of finding the
> *deliberate mistake*? Do you really think I'm that
> stupid?
It was not deliberate, it was unintentional.
I did not correct it immediately , that was deliberate.
> You screwed up. Just admit it.
Not at all. The results are correct.
I suggest you reread the correct setup of the experiment.
>> Let me correct the error, (I reasoned : let's use
>> a gamma that gives 20 % mass increase, pretty
>> basic if you ask me)
>>
>
> So now m/m-zero = 1.2 ? Nope, the calculation is
> still wrong. The answer is that either the bangle
> is rotating much too slowly for the mass increase or
the mass increase implies a tangential velocity around
half the speed of
> light. There are no other possibilities.
Yes, that you misunderstood the setup.
[]
> You are simply wrong, Hayek.
> It's still wrong Hayek. Your calculation is WRONG
[]
> Yes but only in alternate universe where relativists
are psychic. You didn't
> miss any steps, YOU SCREWED UP.
[]
> Much more likely is that you simply screwed up the
calculation. Relativity
> is fine and doesn't need my defence.
[]
> Really? What did you establish (other than you can't
run through a simple
> problem in relativity without making elementary
mistakes in algebra)?
Before you do the algebra, read the setup of the
experiment. That seems to be your problem, solving the
wrong problem. First you have to understand WHAT you are
doing before you unleash the equations. That has been my
criticism all the time. It is brilliantly confirmed.
>> >>It seems in this case that
>> >>whales are round edible things that grow on trees,
>> >>and apples are many ton weighing mammals that swim in
>> >>the sea.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It appears that you cannot do simple math when
>>supplied with the right
>> > equations.
>>
>>
>>It appears that you do not have any notion of what your
>>doing, not even the simplest concepts. I thought it was
>>bad, but it is absolutely hopeless.
>>
>
> Really? So my calculation was wrong? Did I justify
what the value of gamma
> was or not? Are my calculations correct or not?
That does not matter. Your calculation address the wrong
problem. Therefore they cannot be correct for solving
the problem presented.
First gamma is defined as gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
I had to look that up.
The reason I thought you were right about gamma is that
I use a german physics reference that does not use
gamma, but beta as (v^2/c^2). It does not mention gamma.
But that is not the point : you know that mass increases
and time dilates.
Too bad for you.
>
>
>> >
>> >>I bet Titanpoints theory on cosmology will be
>> >>interesting, maybe it has even time travel in it.
>> >>Physics by reciting mantras on inertia and time, not
>> >>knowing they are the same. Feynman laughs in his
grave.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Actually it doesn't. But then what's a straw man
>>argument between friends?
>>
>>
>> >>And the shoe also fits for the lot of you whining
>> >>"Mach's Principle has nothing to do with GR".
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sign me up for the Whiner's Club
>>
>>There is a long waiting list...
>>
>
> Then I'm proud to join such illustrious fellow
travellers.
Wait and redo the experiment.
I am not gong to add more to this.
You made it bad enough for yourself.
Hayek.
titanpoint
>
>
> titanpoint wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not letting this go, Hayek. Even if we allow
> > gamma = 1/1.2 = 0.8333 this implies that the
> > tangential speed is 165831 m/s !!!
> >
> > WRONG WRONG WRONG. Which part of "WRONG" don't you
> > comprehend?
>
>
> When you pronounce it.
> I am not calculating gamma on the rotating disc.
> I am putting the disc in a gravitational field with
> gamma (which I used correctly btw) 1.2 OR in a space
> ship that has a speed that causes gamma to be 1.2 ,
> I specifically stated that.
No you didn't. You stated that it didn't matter whether the ring was in a
gravitational field or not. You have not stated anything correctly other
than you're now bullshitting to save face.
A gamma which makes the relativistic mass to be 1.2 times the rest mass is
implies that the ring is rotating extremely rapidly. If we're not
calculating the relativistic mass of a rotating ring then what are we
measuring?
Why calculate gamma on a rotating disc if you're not interested in the
effects of rotation? Why not just call it a lump of matter of mass 10 kgs is
moved into a gravitational field such that its relativistic mass is 1.2
times its rest mass...
You didn't.
You've been caught out Hayek. Just admit that you got the calculation
completely wrong. You have not produced proof that apples are whales.
>
>
> >>>
> >>> Therefore gamma cannot be greater than 1. Where
> >>> the
> >> heck did you get 1.2
>
>
> I defined it that way :
> Hayek:
> "
> We now apply a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
> we do not care wether the gamma factor is induced by
> speed or gravitational field,
> "
>
>
> > But the gamma you used implies a much higher
> > tangential velocity and hence angular momentum.
> > Still wrong.
>
>
> No, if you cared to read how what the experiment is about.
Nope. Redefining things to mean what you think they ought to mean rather
than accept you were wrong in your propositions is characteristic of a
withdrawal from reality found in people with schizophrenia.
>
>
> >>
> >> When 'cutting' an intermediate step, an
> >> unfortunate error occured, "/12" was not erased. I
> >> should have corrected it immediately in a
> >> follow-up post, but since the result was correct,
> >> I thought you super mathematicians would
> >> immediately spot this, or fall in the trap. Of
> >> course, TP fell in the trap.
> >>
> >>
> > Yeah right, I fell into the trap of finding the
> > *deliberate mistake*? Do you really think I'm that
> > stupid?
>
>
> It was not deliberate, it was unintentional.
> I did not correct it immediately , that was deliberate.
>
>
> > You screwed up. Just admit it.
>
>
> Not at all. The results are correct.
> I suggest you reread the correct setup of the experiment.
>
>
I have. You're wrong, Hayek.
> >> Let me correct the error, (I reasoned : let's use
> >> a gamma that gives 20 % mass increase, pretty
> >> basic if you ask me)
> >>
> >
> > So now m/m-zero = 1.2 ? Nope, the calculation is
> > still wrong. The answer is that either the bangle
> > is rotating much too slowly for the mass increase or
> the mass increase implies a tangential velocity around
> half the speed of
> > light. There are no other possibilities.
>
>
> Yes, that you misunderstood the setup.
>
No. You thought I couldn't prove you wrong. You were wrong.
>
> []
> > You are simply wrong, Hayek.
>
> > It's still wrong Hayek. Your calculation is WRONG
>
> []
>
> > Yes but only in alternate universe where relativists
> are psychic. You didn't
> > miss any steps, YOU SCREWED UP.
> []
> > Much more likely is that you simply screwed up the
> calculation. Relativity
> > is fine and doesn't need my defence.
>
>
> []
>
> > Really? What did you establish (other than you can't
> run through a simple
> > problem in relativity without making elementary
> mistakes in algebra)?
>
>
> Before you do the algebra, read the setup of the
> experiment. That seems to be your problem, solving the
> wrong problem. First you have to understand WHAT you are
> doing before you unleash the equations. That has been my
> criticism all the time. It is brilliantly confirmed.
>
Nope. Now you're up shit creek with no means of propulsion.
>
> >> >>It seems in this case that
> >> >>whales are round edible things that grow on trees,
> >> >>and apples are many ton weighing mammals that swim in
> >> >>the sea.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > It appears that you cannot do simple math when
> >>supplied with the right
> >> > equations.
> >>
> >>
> >>It appears that you do not have any notion of what your
> >>doing, not even the simplest concepts. I thought it was
> >>bad, but it is absolutely hopeless.
> >>
> >
> > Really? So my calculation was wrong? Did I justify
> what the value of gamma
> > was or not? Are my calculations correct or not?
>
>
>
> That does not matter. Your calculation address the wrong
> problem. Therefore they cannot be correct for solving
> the problem presented.
Nope. I got the right answer. Thanks to the immutability of Usenet, everyone
can see that.
>
> First gamma is defined as gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> I had to look that up.
> The reason I thought you were right about gamma is that
> I use a german physics reference that does not use
> gamma, but beta as (v^2/c^2). It does not mention gamma.
> But that is not the point : you know that mass increases
> and time dilates.
Nope. Then the German physics book is wrong. Or you're reading it wrong.
I am not afraid.
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >>I bet Titanpoints theory on cosmology will be
> >> >>interesting, maybe it has even time travel in it.
> >> >>Physics by reciting mantras on inertia and time, not
> >> >>knowing they are the same. Feynman laughs in his
> grave.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Actually it doesn't. But then what's a straw man
> >>argument between friends?
> >>
> >>
> >> >>And the shoe also fits for the lot of you whining
> >> >>"Mach's Principle has nothing to do with GR".
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Sign me up for the Whiner's Club
> >>
> >>There is a long waiting list...
> >>
> >
> > Then I'm proud to join such illustrious fellow
> travellers.
>
> Wait and redo the experiment.
Nope, the experiment is done and the answer delivered. Apples are not
whales. Inertia is not time.
Yeah right.
TP
Franz Heymann
No.
> >>We now apply a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
> >>we do not care wether the gamma factor is induced by
> >>speed or gravitational field, we have mass increase, and
> >>we do not care if this is real mass increase , adding of
> >>atoms, atoms growing warts or muscles, or inertial mass
> >>increase.
> >>
> >
> > Woah!
> >
> > A gamma factor like that is ridiculous!
> >
> > Gamma = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
>
> Someone well versed in relativistic calculations
> would spot immediately that I meant the reciprocal of
> the gamma factor.
I am well enough versed to realise by now that you don't know which is
the gamma factor and which is its recipeocal That last sentence gives
away the game.
>
> >
> > Therefore gamma cannot be greater than 1. Where the
> heck did you get 1.2
> > from?
> >
> > If v=50, gamma = sqrt(1-(50/300000)^2), so at this
> speed the time dilation
> > of a caesium atom on the bangle is around
> sqrt(1-2.77x10^-8) = 0.9999999861,
> > so the caesium atom clock runs slightly slower than a
> reference clock
> > situated at the centre of rotation.
> >
> > The mass increase of the bangle would be :
> > m-zero/gamma - m-zero= 10/0.9999999861 -10 =
> 10.000000138 kg
> >
> > or roughly a 138 micrograms.
> >
> >
> >>1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500/12 => x= 41.66 rad/sec
> >>
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > You were calculating mass remember? Mass is in
> kilograms, not rad/sec
> >
>
>
> I was calculating angular momentum.
> then saying that angular momentum stays the same,
And that was all you were doing.
>
> r^2 * m/gamma * x = A
>
> When 'cutting' an intermediate step,
> an unfortunate error occured, "/12" was not erased.
> I should have corrected it immediately in a follow-up
> post, but since the result was correct, I thought you
> super mathematicians would immediately spot this, or
> fall in the trap. Of course, TP fell in the trap.
>
> Let me correct the error,
> (I reasoned : let's use a gamma that gives 20 % mass
> increase, pretty basic if you ask me)
>
> 1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500
> => x=500/12 ( the step I erased not completely)
> => x= 41.66 rad/sec
This angular velocity, does not give the necessary speed at the
periphery to justify the gamma factor you are talking about, so cut
the cackle about gamma factors.
>
> I was definitely not calculating mass,
> but the angular velocity w wich I replaced with x.
> This is high school math at the level of a 15 year old.
That is a correct statement.
>
>
> >>We now calculate the time dilation :
> >>
> >>(50 rad/sec) /1.2 = 41.66 rad/sec
> >>
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > Time dilation is measured in seconds, not rad/sec
>
>
> I skipped a few steps, but I assure you the result is
> correct.
Time dilation is not measured in rad/sec, whether or not you skip a
few steps.
> If the result is not correct that would overthrow
> relativity.
The result, even if correct, has sweet fanny adams to do with
relativity.
It has to do with angular momentum conservation
>
> Angular velocity is nothing else than an other
> expression of rotations per second.
It is not an expression of rotations per second. It is an expression
of radians per second.
> It is another
> notation of Hertz which is the reciprocal of time. You
> should really get some basic physics lessons. And I mean
> *really basic*. I dare even state that you are worse
> than Josx.
The boot is on the other foot.
Apart from a misleading statement (and boy, did it mislead you!) from
Titanpoint about gamma factors, he was essentially correct.
The gamma factor is utterly irrelevant in this purely Newtonian little
calculation you are performing.
You, Hayek, on the other hand, do not know what you are talking about.
If you continue in this vein, I will commend you to Dirk Vdmeer for
inclusion in his gallery.
[...]
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Hayek wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Someone well versed in relativistic calculations
> > would spot immediately that I meant the reciprocal of
> > the gamma factor.
>
>
> Gamma is defined as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> You made me doubt it for a moment.
> So you can have a gamma of 1.2
Ah, so you have had time to check on something you wee not conversant
with.
That does not bode well for posting on matters concerning Special
Relativity.
Franz Heymann
Titan Point
>> It is another
>> notation of Hertz which is the reciprocal of time. You should really
>> get some basic physics lessons. And I mean *really basic*. I dare even
>> state that you are worse than Josx.
>
> The boot is on the other foot.
> Apart from a misleading statement (and boy, did it mislead you!) from
> Titanpoint about gamma factors, he was essentially correct. The gamma
> factor is utterly irrelevant in this purely Newtonian little calculation
> you are performing.
>
> You, Hayek, on the other hand, do not know what you are talking about.
> If you continue in this vein, I will commend you to Dirk Vdmeer for
> inclusion in his gallery.
>
> [...]
>
> Franz Heymann
Yes, I got gamma wrong in the sense that I should have used 1/(1-v2/c2)
but hopefully I got the rest of the calculation correct (if for slightly
the wrong reason)
I don't understand Hayek at all. Sometimes Hayek talks perfect sense
(occasionally), other times complete junk like this.
Are there two Hayeks, or split personalities?
TP
Hayek
titanpoint wrote:
> No you didn't. You stated that it didn't matter
> whether the ring was in a gravitational field or
> not. You have not stated anything correctly other than
> you're now bullshitting to save face.
I am not saving face , just read the original post,
it is there. What are you going to do in an exam on
relativity ? Say the question was wrong ? That is what
you are doing.
> A gamma which makes the relativistic mass to be 1.2
> times the rest mass is implies that the ring is
> rotating extremely rapidly. If we're not calculating
> the relativistic mass of a rotating ring then what
> are we measuring?
>
> Why calculate gamma on a rotating disc if you're not
> interested in the effects of rotation? Why not
> just call it a lump of matter of mass 10 kgs is moved
> into a gravitational field such that its
> relativistic mass is 1.2 times its rest mass...
Because a ideal rotating disc without friction acts as a
clock.
>
> You didn't.
>
> You've been caught out Hayek. Just admit that you
> got the calculation completely wrong. You have not
> produced proof that apples are whales.
I did.
Reread the original post. And calm down.
If this were an exam you flunked BIG TIME!
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore gamma cannot be greater than 1.
>>>>> Where the
>>>> heck did you get 1.2
>>
>>
>> I defined it that way : Hayek: " We now apply a
>> gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass, we do not care
>> wether the gamma factor is induced by speed or
>> gravitational field, "
>>
>>
>>> But the gamma you used implies a much higher tangential
>>> velocity and hence angular momentum. Still
>>> wrong.
>>
>>
>> No, if you cared to read how what the experiment
>> is about.
>>
>
> Nope. Redefining things to mean what you think they
> ought to mean rather than accept you were wrong in
> your propositions is characteristic of a withdrawal
> from reality found in people with schizophrenia.
There is no redefining, he original post is clear, if
you dare to reread it, and the calculations are correct.
You introduce errors of your own.
>
>> Not at all. The results are correct. I suggest you
>> reread the correct setup of the experiment.
>>
>>
>>
> I have. You're wrong, Hayek.
I suggest you start searching where *you* are wrong,
because I ain't.
>> Yes, that you misunderstood the setup.
>>
>>
> No. You thought I couldn't prove you wrong. You were
> wrong.
Repeating it will not help.
You simply do not understand the experiment.
And a lot of other very basic things in physics.
> Nope. Now you're up shit creek with no means of
> propulsion.
> Nope. I got the right answer. Thanks to the
> immutability of Usenet, everyone can see that.
Rotfl.
> Nope. Then the German physics book is wrong. Or
> you're reading it wrong.
> I am not afraid.
Yoda to Luke Skywalker :
"you will be"
the dark side is in you...
>
> Nope, the experiment is done and the answer
> delivered. Apples are not whales. Inertia is not
> time.
You would not know a whale from an apple.
>
> Yeah right.
You bet....
Ask your professor.
And get psychological help..
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> Ah, so you have had time to check on something you
> wee not conversant with. That does not bode well
> for posting on matters concerning Special Relativity.
>
The difference between you and me Franz, is that someone
tells me I am wrong, I tend to take them seriously and
really think that it is me making the error.
I do doubt myself. You do not.
In this case it does not matter.
Mass increases , time dilates.
It is very obvious that you made an error if mass
decreases and time speeds up.
So far you have not shown any understanding of the
argument, and I think you never will.
So you know the gamma factor by heart.
That don't impress me much...
For the rest you are unable to follow any logic argument.
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
> That does not bode well for posting on matters concerning Special
> Relativity.
SR, is not that the theory where they consider two
moving objects in empty space ?
I heard a wise man say about this :
"
However, if you meant to say "empty except for two
pieces of matter", the answer is that there is no
experience on which to build a theory for such an
eventuality, and pure ratiocination is incapable of
providing answers to questions in physics.
Physics is about the Universe as we find it, not about
some "what if" situation, so your question is
essentially sterile, except in some ng other than ones
devoted to physics.
"
I answered :
"
How come SR then supposes exactly that, an empty
universe with two pieces of matter ?
"
He never gave an answer, so I suppose he was not that
wise after all.
Hayek
Titan Point wrote:
> Yes, I got gamma wrong in the sense that I should
> have used 1/(1-v2/c2) but hopefully I got the rest
> of the calculation correct (if for slightly the
> wrong reason)
>
> I don't understand Hayek at all. Sometimes Hayek
> talks perfect sense (occasionally), other times
> complete junk like this.
>
> Are there two Hayeks, or split personalities?
I suggest you take my original post,
print it out and show it to your professor.
Please calm down.
I am getting worried about your health.
It is not so bad to make mistakes.
I had to retract my mistake too.
No big deal, be a good sport.
The important part is you understand time=inertia.
Hayek
Hayek wrote:
> Let us equate Apples with Whales.
>
> We take a disc, mass m 10 kilograms at an angular
> velocity w of 50 rad/s. The disc is an idealized
> disc with all its mass at the edge, radius r 1
> meter. We calculate the angular momentum A of the
> disc :
>
> A= m * r^2 * w
>
> 10 kg * 1 m^2 * 50 rad/s = 500 m^2 kg rad/s
That can pose no problems....
> We now apply a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
Applying a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
to the rotating mass m, the 10 kg mass just mentioned.
> we do not care wether the gamma factor is induced by
> speed
>
The speed of a spaceship where the disc is placed,
speed of the spaceship such that gamma=1.2.
> or gravitational field,
Or a gravitational field that causes a gamma of 1.2
> we have mass increase, and
Which is for a mass of 10kg and a gamma of 1.2
thus a mass increase of 2kg the disc now has a
relativistic mass of 12 kgs... 10 kilograms times 1.2
gives 12 kilograms...
> we do not care if this is real mass increase , adding
> of atoms, atoms growing warts or muscles, or inertial
> mass increase.
In short : the mass increases
>
> 1 * 10 * 1.2 * x = 500/12 => x= 41.66 rad/sec
Here the intermediate step got not completely erased.
the '/12' must be removed.
We state that angular momentum is conserved,
the mass is increased so we calculate the new angular
velocity, 'x' in the equation
1 m^2 * 10 kg * gamma * x rad/sec = 500 m^2 kg rad/s
1 * 10 * 1.2 * x= 500
<=> 12 * x = 500
<=> x = 500/12
<=> x = 41.66 (units rad/sec)
gives 1/ (41.66 * pi )= 7.64 e-3 (7.64 * 10^-3) seconds
per revolution
> We now calculate the time dilation :
50 rad/sec => 6.366e-3 (6.366 * 10^-3) sec per rev.
with time dilation :
6.366e-3 * 1.2 = 7.64 e-3 sec per revolution
> (50 rad/sec) /1.2 = 41.66 rad/sec
So 7.64 * 10^-3 sec EQUALS 7.64 * 10^-3 sec
If it is not clear now, it never will be.
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
>>>> We calculate the angular momentum A of the
>>>> disc :
>>>>
>>>> A= m * r^2 * w
>>>>
>>>> 10 kg * 1 m^2 * 50 rad/s = 500 m^2 kg rad/s
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fascinating but irrelevant.
>>
>>
>> Conservation of Angular momentum is irrelevant..
>>
>
> No.
I am repeating his words...
Why would I calculate angular momentum
and put it in an equation so to conserve it ?
He says " Fascinating but irrelevant."
and I answer to make the point clear
"Conservation of Angular momentum is irrelevant.."
I should have put a question mark instead of an
ellipsis, the ellipsis stands for ...think about this...,
to make him realise what blunder he just made...
Are you so dumb, Franz ?
> We now apply a gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass,
>>>> we do not care wether the gamma factor is
>>>> induced by speed or gravitational field, we
>>>> have mass increase, and we do not care if
>>>> this is real mass increase , adding of atoms,
>>>> atoms growing warts or muscles, or inertial
>>>> mass increase.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Woah!
>>>
>>> A gamma factor like that is ridiculous!
>>>
>>> Gamma = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>>
>>
>> Someone well versed in relativistic calculations would
>> spot immediately that I meant the reciprocal of the
>> gamma factor.
>>
>
> I am well enough versed to realise by now that you
> don't know which is the gamma factor and which is
> its recipeocal That last sentence gives away the
> game.
>
I use a german physics book that does not speak about
gamma but uses beta as (v^2/c^2) . I do not care how
gamma is defined. i put in a factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2),
and now that length contracts, time dilates, and mass
increases.
>
> Time dilation is not measured in rad/sec, whether or
> not you skip a few steps.
Whether you use rad/sec , hertz, or seconds,
it is a matter of * or / pi radials and taking a
reciprocal.
wether you express a rotation in rad/sec, revolutions
per second, or second for on revolution, it is all the
same. This is physics for 16 year olds. How old are you
Franz?
I have to admit, in my case, it is rusty, but still
there :-)
> The result, even if correct, has sweet fanny adams
> to do with relativity.
You do not get it.
> It has to do with angular momentum conservation
>
>> Angular velocity is nothing else than an other
expression
>> of rotations per second.
>>
>
> It is not an expression of rotations per second. It
> is an expression of radians per second.
That is why I said "an other expression of"
Your mind is snipping context as it pleases you.
> The boot is on the other foot. Apart from a
> misleading statement (and boy, did it mislead you!)
No. You use gamma, I do not. When he told me, I thought
I used the wrong definition of gamma, I looked it up on
the net. You want me to scan the pages of my Physics
book that uses beta as (v^2/c^2) ?
from
> Titanpoint about gamma factors, he was essentially
> correct.
Now you define gamma differently ?
> The gamma factor is utterly irrelevant in this
> purely Newtonian little calculation you are
> performing.
You are losing it Franz....
And I mean your sanity.
A Newtonian calculation with gamma...
Have it your way.
> You, Hayek, on the other hand, do not know what you
> are talking about. If you continue in this vein, I
> will commend you to Dirk Vdmeer for inclusion in
> his gallery.
It is "Van de moortel"
I would love to be included in his gallery.
But if he sees the argument he will not be so foolish to
do so. My argument is perfectly correct, it will make
his gallery look stupid.
> Franz Heymann
I am really through with you Franz.
Titanpoint
> titanpoint wrote:
>
>
> > No you didn't. You stated that it didn't matter
> > whether the ring was in a gravitational field or
> > not. You have not stated anything correctly other than
> > you're now bullshitting to save face.
>
>
> I am not saving face , just read the original post,
> it is there. What are you going to do in an exam on
> relativity ? Say the question was wrong ? That is what
> you are doing.
Bullshit.
>
>
>
> > A gamma which makes the relativistic mass to be 1.2
> > times the rest mass is implies that the ring is
> > rotating extremely rapidly. If we're not calculating
> > the relativistic mass of a rotating ring then what
> > are we measuring?
> >
> > Why calculate gamma on a rotating disc if you're not
> > interested in the effects of rotation? Why not
> > just call it a lump of matter of mass 10 kgs is moved
> > into a gravitational field such that its
> > relativistic mass is 1.2 times its rest mass...
>
> Because a ideal rotating disc without friction acts as a
> clock.
Bullshit.
>
>
> >
> > You didn't.
> >
> > You've been caught out Hayek. Just admit that you
> > got the calculation completely wrong. You have not
> > produced proof that apples are whales.
>
> I did.
>
> Reread the original post. And calm down.
> If this were an exam you flunked BIG TIME!
Bullshit.
>
>
> >>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Therefore gamma cannot be greater than 1.
> >>>>> Where the
> >>>> heck did you get 1.2
> >>
> >>
> >> I defined it that way : Hayek: " We now apply a
> >> gamma factor of 1.2 to the mass, we do not care
> >> wether the gamma factor is induced by speed or
> >> gravitational field, "
> >>
> >>
> >>> But the gamma you used implies a much higher tangential
> >>> velocity and hence angular momentum. Still
> >>> wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, if you cared to read how what the experiment
> >> is about.
> >>
> >
> > Nope. Redefining things to mean what you think they
> > ought to mean rather than accept you were wrong in
> > your propositions is characteristic of a withdrawal
> > from reality found in people with schizophrenia.
>
>
> There is no redefining, he original post is clear, if
> you dare to reread it, and the calculations are correct.
>
> You introduce errors of your own.
Bullshit.
>
>
> >
> >> Not at all. The results are correct. I suggest you
> >> reread the correct setup of the experiment.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > I have. You're wrong, Hayek.
>
> I suggest you start searching where *you* are wrong,
> because I ain't.
Bullshit.
>
>
> >> Yes, that you misunderstood the setup.
> >>
> >>
> > No. You thought I couldn't prove you wrong. You were
> > wrong.
>
> Repeating it will not help.
> You simply do not understand the experiment.
> And a lot of other very basic things in physics.
Bullshit.
>
>
>
> > Nope. Now you're up shit creek with no means of
> > propulsion.
>
>
> > Nope. I got the right answer. Thanks to the
> > immutability of Usenet, everyone can see that.
>
> Rotfl.
Bullshit.
>
>
> > Nope. Then the German physics book is wrong. Or
> > you're reading it wrong.
>
> > I am not afraid.
>
> Yoda to Luke Skywalker :
>
> "you will be"
>
> the dark side is in you...
Bullshit.
>
>
>
> >
> > Nope, the experiment is done and the answer
> > delivered. Apples are not whales. Inertia is not
> > time.
>
> You would not know a whale from an apple.
Bullshit.
>
> >
> > Yeah right.
>
> You bet....
>
> Ask your professor.
>
> And get psychological help..
Bullshit.
>
>
> Hayek.
Goodbye Hayek. You'll probably drag another sucker into your "thought
experiments" and try to bamboozle them with bullshit. There's nothing
wrong with my mind, but there's plenty wrong with yours.
TP
Franz Heymann
"Titan Point" <titan...@missthisout.myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.12.15....@missthisout.myrealbox.com...
He does fluctuate between sense and nonsense.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> titanpoint wrote:
>
>
> > No you didn't. You stated that it didn't matter
> > whether the ring was in a gravitational field or
> > not. You have not stated anything correctly other than
> > you're now bullshitting to save face.
>
>
> I am not saving face , just read the original post,
> it is there. What are you going to do in an exam on
> relativity ? Say the question was wrong ? That is what
> you are doing.
>
>
>
> > A gamma which makes the relativistic mass to be 1.2
> > times the rest mass is implies that the ring is
> > rotating extremely rapidly. If we're not calculating
> > the relativistic mass of a rotating ring then what
> > are we measuring?
> >
> > Why calculate gamma on a rotating disc if you're not
> > interested in the effects of rotation? Why not
> > just call it a lump of matter of mass 10 kgs is moved
> > into a gravitational field such that its
> > relativistic mass is 1.2 times its rest mass...
>
> Because a ideal rotating disc without friction acts as a
> clock.
Not if you interfere with it by loading its periphery with sand in
order to increase its moment of inertia whilst it is in motion.
[...]
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
>
> > That does not bode well for posting on matters concerning Special
> > Relativity.
>
>
> SR, is not that the theory where they consider two
> moving objects in empty space ?
>
> I heard a wise man say about this :
> "
> However, if you meant to say "empty except for two
> pieces of matter", the answer is that there is no
> experience on which to build a theory for such an
> eventuality, and pure ratiocination is incapable of
> providing answers to questions in physics.
I agree unreservedly that that was a silly statement.
I apologise for not saying that before now.
Franz Heymann
Bill Vajk
> I don't understand Hayek at all. Sometimes Hayek talks perfect sense
> (occasionally), other times complete junk like this.
> Are there two Hayeks, or split personalities?
Occasionally even missionaries have doubts. When they do, they
often make sense.
William J. Vajk
Techny, Illinois
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
This really impressed me. To me this was indeed the
wisest thing you ever said, and what I ever heard on
this NG . :-)
I you had been consequent then SR had to go, wich is
also a very wise thing. SR in an empty universe is
silly. I stated that long before. (Google author Hayek,
keywords: "inertial guidance")
Hayek
Franz Heymann wrote:
Are you saying that the relativistic mass increase will
have a similar effect ? Because I will be happy to
exploit it, in an experiment.
Hayek
Titan Point wrote:
> Yes, I got gamma wrong in the sense that I should
> have used 1/(1-v2/c2) but hopefully I got the rest
> of the calculation correct (if for slightly the
> wrong reason)
Slighly ? They calculations where correct !
Only they solved the *wrong* problem !
The on you invented !
ROTFL ! Slightly ? Rotfl !
> I don't understand Hayek at all. Sometimes Hayek
> talks perfect sense (occasionally), other times
> complete junk like this.
>
> Are there two Hayeks, or split personalities?
There is a perfect explanation for this :
One of your personalities likes me and understands me
and one of you other personalities does not !
Franz Heymann
>
>
> Franz Heymann wrote:
>
> > "Hayek" <hay...@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> > news:3DFD52E7...@nospam.xs4all.nl...
> >
> >>
> >>Franz Heymann wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>That does not bode well for posting on matters concerning Special
> >>>Relativity.
> >>>
> >>
> >>SR, is not that the theory where they consider two
> >>moving objects in empty space ?
> >>
> >>I heard a wise man say about this :
> >>"
> >>However, if you meant to say "empty except for two
> >>pieces of matter", the answer is that there is no
> >>experience on which to build a theory for such an
> >>eventuality, and pure ratiocination is incapable of
> >>providing answers to questions in physics.
> >>
> >
> > I agree unreservedly that that was a silly statement.
> > I apologise for not saying that before now.
>
>
> This really impressed me.
It pleases me to have been of some service to you.
[snip the crap]
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Bill Vajk" <bill9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DFE675E...@hotmail.com...
> Titan Point wrote:
>
> > I don't understand Hayek at all. Sometimes Hayek talks perfect
sense
> > (occasionally), other times complete junk like this.
>
> > Are there two Hayeks, or split personalities?
>
> Occasionally even missionaries have doubts. When they do, they
> often make sense.
An excellent observation.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
No. Please do the full calculation for yourself. You will discover a
number of features, the simplest of which is that that apparently
the ratio betwen the circumference and the diameter of the disc is not
3.14159.........
That ought to amuse you for some time.
When you have dealt with that puzzle, you might turn your mind to the
case of a rotating disc, rather than the rotating ring, that you have
mentioned.
Franz heymann
Franz Heymann
You are, I hope, aware that sometimes it is sometimes your factor and
sometimes its reciprocal which enters the story.
You would be less liable to be accused of ambiguity if you were to
stick to the standard definition of gamma.
> >
> > Time dilation is not measured in rad/sec, whether or
> > not you skip a few steps.
>
> Whether you use rad/sec , hertz, or seconds,
> it is a matter of * or / pi radials and taking a
> reciprocal.
> wether you express a rotation in rad/sec, revolutions
> per second, or second for on revolution, it is all the
> same.
It is distinctly *not* all the same. There are litle matters like
2*pi involved.
pi is not unity.
But you are missing the essential point, which is that you incorrectly
mentioned in an earlier post, something to the effect that time
dilation is measured in radians per second.
Here is a quote of the offending statement:
"We now calculate the time dilation :
(50 rad/sec) /1.2 = 41.66 rad/sec"
That is what you think.
Here is something for you to chew on:
Cast your mind back to the original silly calculation you did.
You found some spurious gamma factor and applied it to determine what
you called a "relativistic mass increase".
Unfortunately you forgot about the possibility of a Lorentz
contraction of the periphery of your rotating ring.
After you have done a new calculation which includes that possibility,
you might notice that the ratio between the circumference of the ring
and its diameter is apparently no longer the number we usually denote
by pi.
I decline to enter into a discussion about that feature of your ring,
but it might amuse you for long enough to get you off this thread.
Franz Heymann