Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #362073 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-28 12:47 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-08-30 10:21 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 136 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 12:47 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 12:51 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 15:58 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 16:00 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 09:11 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 16:59 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 10:17 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 17:22 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 10:28 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 17:35 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 10:45 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 10:48 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 17:56 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-30 14:58 -0400
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 17:52 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 10:59 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 18:04 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 11:06 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 18:51 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 11:55 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 19:27 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 17:45 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 19:55 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-28 15:20 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 16:42 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-28 20:45 -0400
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-29 10:44 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 19:30 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 12:39 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-08-29 17:18 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 17:28 -0700
Pretender Stephane Baune continues to puff himself "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 17:40 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 09:53 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 15:43 -0500
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 16:30 -0500
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 10:15 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 12:18 -0500
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 17:24 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-30 13:56 -0500
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 19:20 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-31 19:56 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-28 20:22 -0500
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 21:28 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 21:35 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 21:39 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 21:50 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox YBM <ybmess@nooos.fr.invalid> - 2015-09-02 00:42 -0300
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-01 20:59 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 21:56 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 22:37 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 22:59 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 23:15 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 21:38 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 21:45 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-28 21:59 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 10:11 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 10:08 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 10:08 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-08-29 11:23 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 11:50 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 05:17 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 12:21 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Photon Beam" <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:03 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 04:24 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 11:49 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 05:10 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 12:20 +0000
Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 07:35 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:34 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 08:43 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:59 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 09:03 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 09:08 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 12:35 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 16:54 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 19:56 +0000
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 13:07 -0700
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 20:12 +0000
Re: Pretender Stephane Baune resurfaces after thorough beating taken in the "Twins Paradox" thread "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 16:56 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-29 08:23 -0400
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 12:26 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-29 08:43 -0400
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 04:29 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 11:46 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-29 13:51 -0500
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 19:27 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 10:34 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 10:38 +0000
The Wheels/Track Paradox fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-08-29 08:23 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 17:49 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 19:25 -0700
Pathological liar Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 19:31 -0700
Re: Pathological liar Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 20:39 -0700
Re: Pathological liar Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 20:52 -0700
Re: Pathological liar Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 21:13 -0700
Re: Pathological liar Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 21:22 -0700
Re: Pathological liar Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Again. rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 22:06 -0700
Re: Pathological liar Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Again. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 23:34 -0700
Re: Pathological liar Stephane Baune inserts foot in mouth. Again. Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 10:07 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com - 2015-08-29 22:02 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 22:17 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-29 23:37 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 10:13 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com - 2015-08-30 03:29 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 10:36 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com - 2015-08-30 03:53 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 11:30 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-08-30 08:31 -0400
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com - 2015-08-30 07:06 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 15:33 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 10:39 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com - 2015-08-30 03:41 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 06:29 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com - 2015-08-30 07:18 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-30 13:47 -0500
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 06:26 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 13:34 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 15:35 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com - 2015-08-30 07:11 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-30 07:30 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com - 2015-08-31 02:30 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-31 06:20 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com - 2015-08-31 06:26 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-31 06:27 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Thomas Yee <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 06:34 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-31 06:39 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Thomas Yee <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 06:47 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-31 06:55 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 06:53 -0700
NPA Member , Crackpot Stephane Baune chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-31 06:58 -0700
Re: NPA Member , Crackpot Stephane Baune chimes in Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-31 18:27 +0000
Re: NPA Member , Crackpot Stephane Baune chimes in rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 12:12 -0700
Re: NPA Member , Crackpot Stephane Baune chimes in "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2015-08-31 12:36 -0700
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 10:04 +0000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-08-30 14:44 +1000
Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 10:21 +0000
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 22:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c15d06a4-af42-47d9-916b-2bbbae2fc224@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362298 |
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 1:02:52 AM UTC-4, ignorantrav...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 7:49:34 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > What's with all this emphasis on the strength-of-materials limitations > of the wheel? None of that has *any* relevance to the solution of this > totally simplistic question Indeed. But you know idiot dono... he likes to change the subjects and introduce spurious nonsense so to hide his incompetence... we all know of his dishonesty and confusions. > 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? The OP is just the nym changing troll and is well aware of his own stupidness. He just seeks attention...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 23:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b223e39b-0bcb-49c1-8709-0c9ab11bfa51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362298 |
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 10:02:52 PM UTC-7, ignorantrav...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 7:49:34 PM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > > 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 c. Of course, it will desintegrate way before it approaches c. > > The proof is trivial. > > What's with all this emphasis on the strength-of-materials limitations > of the wheel? None of that has *any* relevance to the solution of this > totally simplistic question which doesn't even count as a paradox. > Teaches ignorants like you that this is just a thought experiment, it is not realistic that the wheel can reach relativistic wheels without disintegrating.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 10:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrul06$v8t$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362298 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 03:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <789eca83-1ff3-4593-914d-16c4fbb31fcd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362312 |
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. 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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 10:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrumai$2fq$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362316 |
ignorantravingcrackpot wrote: > then the observer sees the "top" of the wheel traveling, not at > 1.00005 c, but at 0.99995001 c. Well, it depends on its radius. You still can't see the problem. Your first number apparently is the demand, the later an appearance. Right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 03:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb54fc71-7f5d-4a7a-9a66-e57bc2bdb34c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362317 |
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 5:36:05 AM UTC-5, Reginald Ehrett wrote: > ignorantravingcrackpot wrote: > > > then the observer sees the "top" of the wheel traveling, not at > > 1.00005 c, but at 0.99995001 c. > > Well, it depends on its radius. You still can't see the problem. Your > first number apparently is the demand, the later an appearance. Right? The first number is the number obtained assuming Galilean composition of velocities. The latter number is what would actually be MEASURED. "Appearance", i.e. what one "sees", can be something different. The standard formulas of special relativity deal with MEASUREMENT. What one "sees" gets us into phenomena like Terrell rotation, etc. Terrell rotation has to do with apparent distortions in the appearance of a high speed object traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light. So we have: 1. What we may calculate assuming Galilean composition of velocities 2. What we may calculate assuming Einstein Velocity Addition 3. What we may MEASURE 4. What we may "see" In general, (3) corresponds with (2)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 11:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mruphg$9t0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362320 |
ignorantravingcrackpot wrote: > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 5:36:05 AM UTC-5, Reginald Ehrett wrote: >> ignorantravingcrackpot wrote: >> >> > then the observer sees the "top" of the wheel traveling, not at >> > 1.00005 c, but at 0.99995001 c. >> >> Well, it depends on its radius. You still can't see the problem. Your >> first number apparently is the demand, the later an appearance. Right? > > The first number is the number obtained assuming Galilean composition of > velocities. The latter number is what would actually be MEASURED. > > "Appearance", i.e. what one "sees", can be something different. > > The standard formulas of special relativity deal with MEASUREMENT. > > What one "sees" gets us into phenomena like Terrell rotation, etc. > Terrell rotation has to do with apparent distortions in the appearance > of a high speed object traveling at a significant fraction of the speed > of light. > > So we have: > 1. What we may calculate assuming Galilean composition of velocities 2. > What we may calculate assuming Einstein Velocity Addition 3. What we may > MEASURE 4. What we may "see" > > In general, (3) corresponds with (2) Calculations, measurements, appearances goes in one thing. You forgot the demand of the axle, which is something else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 08:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <frt5uapejsp52p2oj7kgi8f4bt78v9c0oa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #362320 |
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 03:53:26 -0700 (PDT),
ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com wrote:
>On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 5:36:05 AM UTC-5, Reginald Ehrett wrote:
>> ignorantravingcrackpot wrote:
>>
>> > then the observer sees the "top" of the wheel traveling, not at
>> > 1.00005 c, but at 0.99995001 c.
>>
>> Well, it depends on its radius. You still can't see the problem. Your
>> first number apparently is the demand, the later an appearance. Right?
>
>The first number is the number obtained assuming Galilean composition
>of velocities. The latter number is what would actually be MEASURED.
>
>"Appearance", i.e. what one "sees", can be something different.
>
>The standard formulas of special relativity deal with MEASUREMENT.
>
>What one "sees" gets us into phenomena like Terrell rotation, etc.
>Terrell rotation has to do with apparent distortions in the appearance
>of a high speed object traveling at a significant fraction of the
>speed of light.
>
>So we have:
>1. What we may calculate assuming Galilean composition of velocities
>2. What we may calculate assuming Einstein Velocity Addition
>3. What we may MEASURE
>4. What we may "see"
>
>In general, (3) corresponds with (2)
Why is the ignorant raving crackpot responding
to the stupid nym changing moron troll?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 07:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e54cbc80-46e1-4849-9cad-3e8d7bf27f47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362324 |
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 7:31:58 AM UTC-5, kefischer wrote: > On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 03:53:26 -0700 (PDT), > ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com wrote: > > >The standard formulas of special relativity deal with MEASUREMENT. > > > >What one "sees" gets us into phenomena like Terrell rotation, etc. > >Terrell rotation has to do with apparent distortions in the appearance > >of a high speed object traveling at a significant fraction of the > >speed of light. > > > >So we have: > >1. What we may calculate assuming Galilean composition of velocities > >2. What we may calculate assuming Einstein Velocity Addition > >3. What we may MEASURE > >4. What we may "see" > > > >In general, (3) corresponds with (2) > > Why is the ignorant raving crackpot responding > to the stupid nym changing moron troll? Bored this morning. I've finished reviewing a Wikipedia "Good Article" candidate, giving it a "Pass", and temporarily don't feel in the mood to continue updating a CodeProject article. So I visit here and see the usual silliness. Easy entertainment that doesn't require the use of much in the way of brain cells.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 15:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrv7nk$aru$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362334 |
ignorantravingcrackpot wrote: > Bored this morning. I've finished reviewing a Wikipedia "Good Article" > candidate, giving it a "Pass", and temporarily don't feel in the mood to Wow, just another wikipedia freak. Say no more. > continue updating a CodeProject article. So I visit here and see the > usual Stuff to steal and make it as your own. > silliness. Easy entertainment that doesn't require the use of much in > the way of brain cells. Replying to that piano mover of a kefisher, strongly indicates your few brain cells would have been required, definitely.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 10:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrumg7$2nc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362316 |
ignorantravingcrackpot wrote: > 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. You are the one talking about the spinning wheels. Is not that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 03:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1f0fd16-3965-449f-bb72-45cce2314b85@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362316 |
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 5:29:05 AM UTC-5, 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. > > 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. > > 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. Correction: "observes" or "measures" rather than "sees". To Lofty Goat and to Dono: Strength of materials has nothing to do with the answer to this non-paradox. Note that Tom specifically ignored such practical considerations as being totally non-relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 06:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c50e162-af55-4624-946b-61ead914a12d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362319 |
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 3:41:16 AM UTC-7, ignorantrav...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 5:29:05 AM UTC-5, 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. > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > Correction: "observes" or "measures" rather than "sees". > > To Lofty Goat and to Dono: Strength of materials has nothing to do with > the answer to this non-paradox. I didn't say it DID. I cautioned that one can never EXECUTE the experiment as described by the OP because the wheel would disintegrate. > Note that Tom specifically ignored such > practical considerations as being totally non-relevant. Kissing ass to Tom is not an argument in your favor. It just makes your face stink.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fc00b4b-247d-45ec-89b8-3bbc2249cedf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362332 |
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 8:29:53 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 3:41:16 AM UTC-7, ignorantrav...@gmail.com wrote: > > To Lofty Goat and to Dono: Strength of materials has nothing to do with > > the answer to this non-paradox. > > I didn't say it DID. I cautioned that one can never EXECUTE the experiment as described by the OP because the wheel would disintegrate. In general, whether through technological limitations or otherwise, one cannot execute ANY thought experiment. Of course, in various cases, what were once pure exercises in thought have now, after decades of technological progress, become feasible, although not necessarily in the original form in which the thought experiments were framed. Demonstrations of entanglement are a case in point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 13:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <NJGdnUXk6uhG0n7InZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #362338 |
On 8/30/15 8/30/15 9:18 AM, ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com wrote: > In general, whether through technological limitations or otherwise, > one cannot execute ANY thought experiment. > > Of course, in various cases, what were once pure exercises in thought > have now, after decades of technological progress, become feasible, > although not necessarily in the original form in which the thought > experiments were framed. Demonstrations of entanglement are a case > in point. And also the "twin paradox" has been executed: Bailey et al sent muons around in a storage ring and measured their decay rate. When combined with a measurement of the muon decay rate while at rest, this is a direct implementation of the "twin paradox" -- consider a muon at rest somewhere along the circumference of their storage ring, and the circulating beam repeatedly departs and rejoins it. Their measurement is in excellent agreement with the prediction of SR. Note their "traveling twin" has speed 0.9994 c relative to the frame of the "stationary twin", and was subject to an enormous proper acceleration, ~ 10^18 g. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e6a8910-dede-46a5-af53-5673636cef29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362316 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 13:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrv0pg$q4v$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362330 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mrv7s9$cod$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #362333 |
Reginald Ehrett wrote: > 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 I should have say "translational rotation". Click on "Combined" button in this mouse-button clicking exercise, to elucidate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df87c904-823a-4ab3-b844-941b016ca775@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362330 |
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 8:26:58 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 3:29:05 AM UTC-7, ignorantrav...@gmail.com wrote: > > 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. What makes the essentials of the scenario any different?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 07:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0db8b4a9-33af-4410-8419-4bf06128af0f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #362336 |
On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 7:11:14 AM UTC-7, ignorantrav...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 8:26:58 AM UTC-5, Dono, wrote: > > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 3:29:05 AM UTC-7, ignorantrav...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > 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. > > What makes the essentials of the scenario any different? Rolling motion with no slippage in the OP. Spinning motion with translation in yours. Rather obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web