Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #517397 > unrolled thread

The Wheels/Track Paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 17:22 +0000
            Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 17:35 +0000
              Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 19:27 +0000
    Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-08-28 12:30 -0700
      Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-28 19:55 +0000
        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 pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2015-08-29 06:33 -0700
          Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 07:59 -0700
            Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 08:43 -0500
              Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 10:32 -0400
                Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-31 18:43 +0000
                  Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 14:58 -0400
        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 "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 12:36 -0700
                  Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-31 19:56 +0000
                    Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 13:29 -0700
    Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox xxein1@att.net - 2015-08-28 15:29 -0700
      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
    Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-28 20:22 -0500
      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 "Photon Beam" <none@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:03 -0700
        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 "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 12:55 -0700
            Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-08-29 13:05 -0700
              Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Margarita Cibulkova <margac@terraspace.au> - 2015-08-29 20:18 +0000
          Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-08-29 18:18 -0700
      Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-08-29 11:49 -0700
    Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 12:39 -0700
      Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 16:20 -0400
        Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 14:38 -0700
          Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-29 21:13 -0700
          Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-08-30 05:35 -0700
            Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 08:36 -0700
    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
      Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox jaymoseley@hotmail.com - 2015-09-01 02:45 -0700
    Re: The Wheels/Track Paradox Reginald Ehrett <chasi@competence.org> - 2015-08-30 10:04 +0000
    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

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#517688

Tom wrote...
> So the wheel can move relative to the track with any speed less than c.

If as you say, the axel is moving at .99 c in the ground frame;
What speed would a point on the wheel rim move relative to an observor 
who stands at a distance above the track that is equal to the wheels diameter?
(Assume they are in front of the wheels path and looking at the wheel come towards
them, and,..that the observor is not moving relative to the ground)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517701

On Friday, August 28, 2015 at 5:47:14 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.

The wheel not being a perfect circle would had great wobbler,and fly apart. Rhis goes well with my "wobble Theory:   TreBert 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517711

On 8/29/2015 3:39 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
>
>
> The wheel not being a perfect circle would had great wobbler,and fly
> apart. Rhis goes well with my "wobble Theory:   TreBert


Oh ya... That makes sense. On planet Mongo. That's where Bert is from.
He's a Mongoloid.


-- 
"Are we going to fight or are we going to stand around all day?"
https://goo.gl/TU0Xr6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517727

The wheel travels one circumference in
the same time that the axle travels the
same.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517799

wobbly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517841

John wrote...
> The wheel travels one circumference in the same time that the axle travels the same.

I think the argument was that the rim travels the same distance in the same time in one
revolution but at variable speeds.
Whats odd is:  Both the original author of the thread and respondents like Tom ( baez) 
Roberts seem to suggest that even in non relativistic models its not possible for 
a rim to travel faster than c even when the axle is, at or near c. 
What hilites their stupidity is they waffle on about how these so called relativistic effects
actually are *observed*. Whereas in fact the only observed data on this ( like fizeau)
show that in fact relativistic effects are not manifested in any observations.
One has to artificially alter the data with mathematical transformations to
support the delusional assumptions made by relativity. Hence Roberts idiotic calculation
in an earlier post where he clearly reduces the observed speed of the rim by mathematically
dividing the observed speed by an imagined amount to make sure that it magically never
reaches c. I hope that the american university that hosts his and Baez misinformation , cuts 
them from their budget.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517881

yeah, Fizeau est l'homme

> actually are *observed*. Whereas in fact the only observed data on this ( like fizeau)
> show that in fact relativistic effects are not manifested in any observations.
> One has to artificially alter the data with mathematical transformations to
> support the delusional assumptions made by relativity. Hence Roberts idiotic calculation
> in an earlier post where he clearly reduces the observed speed of the rim by mathematically
> dividing the observed speed by an imagined amount to make sure that it magically never
> reaches c. I hope that the american university that hosts his and Baez misinformation , cuts 
> them from their budget.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517804

On 28/08/2015 10:47 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
> before.
>
> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
> light.
>
> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>
> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
> this limit.
>

It's your paradox. You should show your math. We'll show[*] you where 
it's wrong.

Sylvia.

[*] Or at least, tell you. "Show you" implies that you'll understand, 
and that would be a triumph of hope over experience.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517832

Sylvia Else wrote:

> On 28/08/2015 10:47 PM, Margarita Cibulkova wrote:
>> Came to think on this New Paradox in Relativity, never seen anywhere
>> before.
>>
>> A wheel can maximally only speed up to LESS then A HALF of the speed of
>> light.
>>
>> I let the agile vivacious sprightly readers to find out why.
>>
>> Consequently, all the secondary aggregated wheels have to be bounded by
>> this limit.
>>
>>
> It's your paradox. You should show your math. We'll show[*] you where
> it's wrong. Sylvia.
> [*] Or at least, tell you. "Show you" implies that you'll understand,
> and that would be a triumph of hope over experience.
> 
> Sylvia.

Nothing. No consistence, at all, Kefischer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#518363

Sylvie wrote..
> It's your paradox. You should show your math. We'll show[*] you where it's wrong.

S>Sylvia.

>[*] Or at least, tell you. "Show you" implies that you'll understand, and that would be a triumph of hope over experience.

Im aware that you can make watertight predictions using your maths. The advantage
being that these gedankens can never be tested as measuring positions near light
speed hasnt the technology currently. But one thing you could test for is heat. 
If the rim cant almost double its speed to 'keep up' with its position under relativity,
then as Tom hinted,  those points of the rim atoms will bunch up. If the rim is at c and 
needs to be near 2c classically to prevent bunching,  then under a relativistic
model the bunching wil create great densities at one point of the wheel. Maybe
what? ... 1/2 a million atoms where one should be. That should give great heat, maybe
even fusion
This means in the gedanken that in the ground frame the wheel is generating great heat but
in the axle frame no heat. So which alternative does relativity predict? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517827

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.

I doubt it. As I can see it right now, the top of the wheel is an 
attenuator. And as kefisher already said, the top will revolve lesser than 
the axle. I can be wrong of course. (as the appearances are weaker then 
the demands). However the appearances may become demands, but still I'm 
not convinced.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#517849

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]

#517880

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] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web