Does physics contradict the math in this relativity scenario?

There are two inertial reference frames, F0 and F1, with relative velocity V moving relative to each other along the x-axis. Let V = c*sqrt(3)/2. In F0 there is a steel cylinder of length L aligned along the x-axis. That cylinder is rotating at 10
revolutions per second as measured in F0. The length L is such that simultaneous events as measured in F1 at each end of the cylinder occur one second apart as measured in frame F0.
In F1, at time t' = 0, a straight line is simultaneous placed on the surface of the cylinder parallel to the x-axis. As measured in F1, all points of that line are always parallel to the x-axis as the cylinder rotates. In frame F0, one end of the
cylinder rotates 10 times relative to the other end of the cylinder as the line is placed on the rotating cylinder. Therefore in F0, instead of all points of the line always being parallel to the x-axis, that line spirals around the cylinder 10 times.
Now here's the question regarding physics versus math. Simultaneously, as measured in F1, at all points from one end of cylinder to the other end of the cylinder along the top of the rotating cylinder a very light object is placed that causes
friction with the cylinder thereby slowing the rotation of the cylinder until the rotation of the cylinder comes to a complete stop. F1 observers measure that all points of the line on the cylinder along the x axis stop simultaneously. Therefore
observers in F1 say the line put on the cylinder remains parallel to the x-axis when the rotation of the cylinder stops.
However, observers in F0 say the line is only parallel to the x-axis when the rotation stops if one end of the cylinder rotated 10 times after the other end stopped. So lets say the friction is very, very small such that it takes 10,000 years before
the cylinder stops rotating. From a physics point of view, putting the thing that causes the friction one second later then it was placed at the other end will not cause one end of the cylinder to rotate 10 times after the other end stops. This does
not occur because mechanical interactions along and throughout the cylinder that take place over 10,000 years supersede the one second delay that occurred 10,000 years before.
Therefore the line as measured in F0 does not end up with all points of the line parallel to the x-axis.
Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation has completed stopped.
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:28:40 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation has completed stopped.

You've asked essentially this same question many (many) times before. The answer has not changed, and it will never change. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms of S0,
they must be slowed in a temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. This should be obvious to you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:28:40 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Does physics contradict the math in this relativity scenario?

There are two inertial reference frames, F0 and F1, with relative velocity V moving relative to each other along the x-axis. Let V = c*sqrt(3)/2. In F0 there is a steel cylinder of length L aligned along the x-axis. That cylinder is rotating at 10

revolutions per second as measured in F0. The length L is such that simultaneous events as measured in F1 at each end of the cylinder occur one second apart as measured in frame F0.

In F1, at time t' = 0, a straight line is simultaneous placed on the surface of the cylinder parallel to the x-axis. As measured in F1, all points of that line are always parallel to the x-axis as the cylinder rotates. In frame F0, one end of the

cylinder rotates 10 times relative to the other end of the cylinder as the line is placed on the rotating cylinder. Therefore in F0, instead of all points of the line always being parallel to the x-axis, that line spirals around the cylinder 10 times.

Now here's the question regarding physics versus math. Simultaneously, as measured in F1, at all points from one end of cylinder to the other end of the cylinder along the top of the rotating cylinder a very light object is placed that causes friction

with the cylinder thereby slowing the rotation of the cylinder until the rotation of the cylinder comes to a complete stop. F1 observers measure that all points of the line on the cylinder along the x axis stop simultaneously. Therefore observers in F1
say the line put on the cylinder remains parallel to the x-axis when the rotation of the cylinder stops.

However, observers in F0 say the line is only parallel to the x-axis when the rotation stops if one end of the cylinder rotated 10 times after the other end stopped. So lets say the friction is very, very small such that it takes 10,000 years before

the cylinder stops rotating. From a physics point of view, putting the thing that causes the friction one second later then it was placed at the other end will not cause one end of the cylinder to rotate 10 times after the other end stops. This does not
occur because mechanical interactions along and throughout the cylinder that take place over 10,000 years supersede the one second delay that occurred 10,000 years before.

Therefore the line as measured in F0 does not end up with all points of the line parallel to the x-axis.
Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation has completed stopped.
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

You've been posting same things for years now. Do you intend
to ever make any progress? This is not the way to do it.

--
Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06-Sept-23 12:28 pm, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Does physics contradict the math in this relativity scenario?

There are two inertial reference frames, F0 and F1, with relative velocity V moving relative to each other along the x-axis. Let V = c*sqrt(3)/2. In F0 there is a steel cylinder of length L aligned along the x-axis. That cylinder is rotating at 10

revolutions per second as measured in F0. The length L is such that simultaneous events as measured in F1 at each end of the cylinder occur one second apart as measured in frame F0.

In F1, at time t' = 0, a straight line is simultaneous placed on the surface of the cylinder parallel to the x-axis. As measured in F1, all points of that line are always parallel to the x-axis as the cylinder rotates. In frame F0, one end of the

cylinder rotates 10 times relative to the other end of the cylinder as the line is placed on the rotating cylinder. Therefore in F0, instead of all points of the line always being parallel to the x-axis, that line spirals around the cylinder 10 times.

Now here's the question regarding physics versus math. Simultaneously, as measured in F1, at all points from one end of cylinder to the other end of the cylinder along the top of the rotating cylinder a very light object is placed that causes

friction with the cylinder thereby slowing the rotation of the cylinder until the rotation of the cylinder comes to a complete stop. F1 observers measure that all points of the line on the cylinder along the x axis stop simultaneously. Therefore
observers in F1 say the line put on the cylinder remains parallel to the x-axis when the rotation of the cylinder stops.

However, observers in F0 say the line is only parallel to the x-axis when the rotation stops if one end of the cylinder rotated 10 times after the other end stopped. So lets say the friction is very, very small such that it takes 10,000 years

before the cylinder stops rotating. From a physics point of view, putting the thing that causes the friction one second later then it was placed at the other end will not cause one end of the cylinder to rotate 10 times after the other end stops. This
does not occur because mechanical interactions along and throughout the cylinder that take place over 10,000 years supersede the one second delay that occurred 10,000 years before.

Therefore the line as measured in F0 does not end up with all points of the line parallel to the x-axis.
Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation has completed stopped.
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

There is no physics there, there is only math. If there's a
contradiction, it's because you got the math wrong.

Sylvia.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 10:12:46 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:28:40 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation
has completed stopped.

You've asked essentially this same question many (many) times before. The answer has not changed, and it will never change. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms of S0,

they must be slowed in a temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. This should be obvious to you.
Please explain:
1. How many times one end rotates more than the other end if F1 only just put the friction object at one end of the rotating cylinder and left the majority of the cylinder without any friction object touching it.
2. Why the angular velocity of the rotation has zero effect on the outcome. Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop Tx

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:25:34 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation
has completed stopped.

You've asked essentially this same question many (many) times before. The answer has not changed, and it will never change. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms of S0,

they must be slowed in a temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. This should be obvious to you.

How many times one end rotates more than the other end [during
the time in which I have stipulated that it rotates 10 more times].

10.

if F1 only just put the friction...

S1 is a system of coordinates, it doesn't "do" anything, let alone apply friction.

object at one end of the rotating cylinder and left the majority
of the cylinder without any friction object touching it.

Then the line will not remain straight in terms of S1, contradicting your stipulation. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms of S0, they must be slowed in a precise
temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. Remember? You are (as always) forgetting that there is no superluminal propagation of stress, so you have to apply the requisite forces
to each slice to make the line stay straight in terms of S1. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

[What mental illness would cause a grown man to ask] Why the angular velocity of the rotation has zero effect on the outcome.

I'm not a psychiatrist, so I couldn't even speculate on what would cause someone, when referring to an outcome that obviously depends entirely on the speed of rotation, to ask why the outcome doesn't depend on the speed of rotation. I can only say it
isn't an isolated incident... the subject has been asking such stridently idiotic, loaded, and falsely-premised questions regularly for decades. It just seems to be an on-going malfunction of his brain.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 11:32:23 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 06-Sept-23 12:28 pm, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Does physics contradict the math in this relativity scenario?

There are two inertial reference frames, F0 and F1, with relative velocity V moving relative to each other along the x-axis. Let V = c*sqrt(3)/2. In F0 there is a steel cylinder of length L aligned along the x-axis. That cylinder is rotating at 10

revolutions per second as measured in F0. The length L is such that simultaneous events as measured in F1 at each end of the cylinder occur one second apart as measured in frame F0.

In F1, at time t' = 0, a straight line is simultaneous placed on the surface of the cylinder parallel to the x-axis. As measured in F1, all points of that line are always parallel to the x-axis as the cylinder rotates. In frame F0, one end of the

cylinder rotates 10 times relative to the other end of the cylinder as the line is placed on the rotating cylinder. Therefore in F0, instead of all points of the line always being parallel to the x-axis, that line spirals around the cylinder 10 times.

Now here's the question regarding physics versus math. Simultaneously, as measured in F1, at all points from one end of cylinder to the other end of the cylinder along the top of the rotating cylinder a very light object is placed that causes

friction with the cylinder thereby slowing the rotation of the cylinder until the rotation of the cylinder comes to a complete stop. F1 observers measure that all points of the line on the cylinder along the x axis stop simultaneously. Therefore
observers in F1 say the line put on the cylinder remains parallel to the x-axis when the rotation of the cylinder stops.

However, observers in F0 say the line is only parallel to the x-axis when the rotation stops if one end of the cylinder rotated 10 times after the other end stopped. So lets say the friction is very, very small such that it takes 10,000 years before

the cylinder stops rotating. From a physics point of view, putting the thing that causes the friction one second later then it was placed at the other end will not cause one end of the cylinder to rotate 10 times after the other end stops. This does not
occur because mechanical interactions along and throughout the cylinder that take place over 10,000 years supersede the one second delay that occurred 10,000 years before.

Therefore the line as measured in F0 does not end up with all points of the line parallel to the x-axis.
Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation has completed stopped.
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

There is no physics there, there is only math. If there's a
contradiction, it's because you got the math wrong.

Sylvia.

Where is the missing physics?
What is your physics?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:17:14 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:25:34 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation
has completed stopped.

You've asked essentially this same question many (many) times before. The answer has not changed, and it will never change. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms of

S0, they must be slowed in a temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. This should be obvious to you.

How many times one end rotates more than the other end [during
the time in which I have stipulated that it rotates 10 more times].

10.

if F1 only just put the friction...

S1 is a system of coordinates, it doesn't "do" anything, let alone apply friction.

object at one end of the rotating cylinder and left the majority
of the cylinder without any friction object touching it.

Then the line will not remain straight in terms of S1, contradicting your stipulation. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms of S0, they must be slowed in a precise

temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. Remember? You are (as always) forgetting that there is no superluminal propagation of stress, so you have to apply the requisite forces
to each slice to make the line stay straight in terms of S1. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

[What mental illness would cause a grown man to ask] Why the angular velocity of the rotation has zero effect on the outcome.

I'm not a psychiatrist, so I couldn't even speculate on what would cause someone, when referring to an outcome that obviously depends entirely on the speed of rotation, to ask why the outcome doesn't depend on the speed of rotation. I can only say it

isn't an isolated incident... the subject has been asking such stridently idiotic, loaded, and falsely-premised questions regularly for decades. It just seems to be an on-going malfunction of his brain.

Bill,
Are you assuming that observers in inertial frame S1 started the rotation of all points simultaneously? What happens in the scenario when observers in the inertial reference frame S0 start the rotation of all points simultaneously? I was asking what
happens when inertial reference frame S1 slowly, slowly, reduces the rotation of the cylinder until it stops. Did you just arbitrarily choose which frame started the initial rotation of the cylinder to fit your conclusion?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 5:53:40 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation
has completed stopped.

You've asked essentially this same question many (many) times before. The answer has not changed, and it will never change. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms

of S0, they must be slowed in a temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. This should be obvious to you.

How many times one end rotates more than the other end [during
the time in which I have stipulated that it rotates 10 more times].

10.

if F1 only just put the friction...

S1 is a system of coordinates, it doesn't "do" anything, let alone apply friction.

object at one end of the rotating cylinder and left the majority
of the cylinder without any friction object touching it.

Then the line will not remain straight in terms of S1, contradicting your stipulation. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms of S0, they must be slowed in a precise

temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. Remember? You are (as always) forgetting that there is no superluminal propagation of stress, so you have to apply the requisite forces
to each slice to make the line stay straight in terms of S1. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

[What mental illness would cause a grown man to ask] Why the angular velocity of the rotation has zero effect on the outcome.

I'm not a psychiatrist, so I couldn't even speculate on what would cause someone, when referring to an outcome that obviously depends entirely on the speed of rotation, to ask why the outcome doesn't depend on the speed of rotation. I can only say it

isn't an isolated incident... the subject has been asking such stridently idiotic, loaded, and falsely-premised questions regularly for decades. It just seems to be an on-going malfunction of his brain.

Did you just arbitrarily choose which frame started the initial rotation of the
cylinder to fit your conclusion?

There are no choices to be made here, you specified that the line is straight at an instant of S1, and with the specified length and angular speed of the cylinder this implies the line has 10 windings at an instant of S0, and you further specified the
slices are then slowed in such a way that the line remains straight in terms of S1, which implies the decelerations of the slices take place simultaneously in terms of S1 (which will not occur by accident, since no superluminal communication of torque),
which implies they are not simultaneous in terms of S0, and they necessarily unwind in terms of S0.

This is all obvious, and it has all been explained in detail to you previously, and you claimed to finally understand it... and now here you are asking the very same question again. What happened? Did you get kicked in the head by a mule or something?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:57:42 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 5:53:40 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation
has completed stopped.

You've asked essentially this same question many (many) times before. The answer has not changed, and it will never change. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms

of S0, they must be slowed in a temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. This should be obvious to you.

How many times one end rotates more than the other end [during
the time in which I have stipulated that it rotates 10 more times].

10.

if F1 only just put the friction...

S1 is a system of coordinates, it doesn't "do" anything, let alone apply friction.

object at one end of the rotating cylinder and left the majority
of the cylinder without any friction object touching it.

Then the line will not remain straight in terms of S1, contradicting your stipulation. Again, to maintain the straight line in terms of S1, the cross-sections of the cylinder are not slowed in synch in terms of S0, they must be slowed in a precise

temporally skewed pattern that precisely unwinds the 10 windings in terms of S0 by the time the rotation is stopped. Remember? You are (as always) forgetting that there is no superluminal propagation of stress, so you have to apply the requisite forces
to each slice to make the line stay straight in terms of S1. How many times does this have to be explained to you?

[What mental illness would cause a grown man to ask] Why the angular velocity of the rotation has zero effect on the outcome.

I'm not a psychiatrist, so I couldn't even speculate on what would cause someone, when referring to an outcome that obviously depends entirely on the speed of rotation, to ask why the outcome doesn't depend on the speed of rotation. I can only say

it isn't an isolated incident... the subject has been asking such stridently idiotic, loaded, and falsely-premised questions regularly for decades. It just seems to be an on-going malfunction of his brain.

Did you just arbitrarily choose which frame started the initial rotation of the
cylinder to fit your conclusion?

There are no choices to be made here, you specified that the line is straight at an instant of S1, and with the specified length and angular speed of the cylinder this implies the line has 10 windings at an instant of S0, and you further specified the

slices are then slowed in such a way that the line remains straight in terms of S1, which implies the decelerations of the slices take place simultaneously in terms of S1 (which will not occur by accident, since no superluminal communication of torque),
which implies they are not simultaneous in terms of S0, and they necessarily unwind in terms of S0.

This is all obvious, and it has all been explained in detail to you previously, and you claimed to finally understand it... and now here you are asking the very same question again. What happened? Did you get kicked in the head by a mule or something?

So Bill,
You are saying that if the cylinder was not rotating at the start of the scenario and there was a straight line on it parallel to the x-axis, if observers either at rest in S0 or at rest in S1 simultaneously start the rotation of the cylinder, and
then S1 observers put another straight line simultaneously on the cylinder parallel to the x-axis, and then S1 observers slowly, slowly reduced the rotation rate the outcome would be the same when the rotation comes to a complete stop. I would expect
those two scenarios to be different. Why do you think they would be the same? David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:00:05 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

You specified that the line is straight at an instant of S1, and with the specified length and angular speed of the cylinder this implies the line has 10 windings at an instant of S0, and you further specified the slices are then slowed in such a way

that the line remains straight in terms of S1, which implies the decelerations of the slices take place simultaneously in terms of S1 (which will not occur by accident, since no superluminal communication of torque), which implies they are not
simultaneous in terms of S0, and they necessarily unwind in terms of S0. This is all obvious...

You are saying that if [while the cylinder is rotating, as I specified] a straight
line in terms of S1 is drawn on the cylinder parallel to the x-axis [as I specified],
and then the cylinder's rotation is slowly reduced while keepiong the line straight in terms of S1, as I specified, then the outcome would be as you explained
when the rotation comes to a complete stop, regardless of whatever irrelevant things
I state occurred previously. I would expect those irrelevant things to be relevant. Why do you think those irrelevant things are irrelevant?

Again, all that matters is that you are specifying a straight line revolving around the axis in terms of S1, and then the slices of the cylinder are each slowed in such a way that the line remains straight, and then the rotation has stopped, the line is
still straight in terms of S1 and is also straight in terms of S0, having unwound the 10 sprials by decelerating the disks simultaneously in terms of S1 so not in terms of S0, which results in the unwinding.

What your diseased brain is fixating on is the irrelevant phase relations relative to two alternate prior states and processes, which are irrelevant. Of course, depending on the materials, etc., any pre-stressing between the disks would affect the
forces required to carry out the stipulated motions, but that doesn't change the stipulated motions.

This was all explained to you many times before. Your problem has nothing to do with special relativity... your problem is that you can't think rationally. Agreed?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 3:03:56 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:00:05 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

You specified that the line is straight at an instant of S1, and with the specified length and angular speed of the cylinder this implies the line has 10 windings at an instant of S0, and you further specified the slices are then slowed in such a

way that the line remains straight in terms of S1, which implies the decelerations of the slices take place simultaneously in terms of S1 (which will not occur by accident, since no superluminal communication of torque), which implies they are not
simultaneous in terms of S0, and they necessarily unwind in terms of S0. This is all obvious...

You are saying that if [while the cylinder is rotating, as I specified] a straight
line in terms of S1 is drawn on the cylinder parallel to the x-axis [as I specified],
and then the cylinder's rotation is slowly reduced while keepiong the line straight in terms of S1, as I specified, then the outcome would be as you explained
when the rotation comes to a complete stop, regardless of whatever irrelevant things
I state occurred previously. I would expect those irrelevant things to be relevant. Why do you think those irrelevant things are irrelevant?

Again, all that matters is that you are specifying a straight line revolving around the axis in terms of S1, and then the slices of the cylinder are each slowed in such a way that the line remains straight, and then the rotation has stopped, the line

is still straight in terms of S1 and is also straight in terms of S0, having unwound the 10 sprials by decelerating the disks simultaneously in terms of S1 so not in terms of S0, which results in the unwinding.

What your diseased brain is fixating on is the irrelevant phase relations relative to two alternate prior states and processes, which are irrelevant. Of course, depending on the materials, etc., any pre-stressing between the disks would affect the

forces required to carry out the stipulated motions, but that doesn't change the stipulated motions.

This was all explained to you many times before. Your problem has nothing to do with special relativity... your problem is that you can't think rationally. Agreed?

Bill,
You wrote: "What your diseased brain is fixating on is the irrelevant phase relations relative to two alternate prior states and processes, which are irrelevant. Of course, depending on the materials, etc., any pre-stressing between the disks would
affect the forces required to carry out the stipulated motions, but that doesn't change the stipulated motions."
So it sounds like you are saying that you agree that the material properties affect the forces required to carry out the stipulated motions, but that doesn't affect the math results of relativity. Why aren't the math results affected?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:14:56 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

It sounds like you are saying that you agree that the material properties affect the forces required to carry out the stipulated motions...

You're confused. You claimed that, given the stipulated kinematics of the situation, expressing those kinematics in terms of different systems of coordinates (related by Lorentz transformations) leads to contradictory results. I explained why your
claim is false (not to mention idiotic, and reminded you that this has all been explained to you previously). Then, since you expressed confusion about some irrelevant possible "differences" in the dynamics, I pointed out that the forces required to
produce the stipulated kinematics obviously depend on many things such as material properties that you have not specified. By explaining this to you (for the 20th time), I am not "agreeing" with you, because your claims rest on the idiotic denial of
this very thing. Your false claim of a contradiction concerned pure kinematics.

Example: Suppose two stationary objects on a line are separated by 10 meters, and there is a rubber cord connecting them. If we move the right hand object 5 meters to the right, what is the separation between objects now? Well, the answer is 15 meters.
You see? The properties of the rubber cord, its length, how much force it applies, whether or not it breaks, its initial tension, etc., have no relevance to the question, because the kinematics were fully specified. And we can describe this in terms
of different coordinate systems and there is obviously no contradiction; the cord is still irrelevant. If you want to talk about forces, you must specify much more information, about initial tensions and material properties, and so on, and then you must
understand how the descriptions of forces depend on the coordinate system. But that doesn't affect the relationship between the stipulated kinematics as described in terms of the two systems of coordinates.

but that doesn't affect the math results of relativity.

Again, your brain has severe malfunctioned. What you are doing (as always) is specifying some kinematical situation, and then asking how the descriptions of this situation in terms of two different systems of coordinates related by Lorentz
transformation are related to each other. That is pure math (which you always get wrong). Even if you were able to provide all the information necessary to specify the forces involved in the stipulated kinematics, we could then just as easily describe
those forces in terms of the different systems of coordinates, and, again, this is pure math. The physics is already agreed once you have stipulated that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. If you were really
trying to dispute local Lorentz invariance (special relativity), this is what you would have to challenge... but you never do this. You just waste your time making dumb math mistakes, never noticing that a simple linear transformation of coordinates
cannot possibly lead to any inconsistency.

Why aren't the math results affected?

Again, your brain has severely malfunctioned. Math is just the language used to describe both the kinematics and the dynamics, and special relativity treats all of this perfectly well, but you have not described anything about the dynamics. Your
scenario focused entirely on the kinematics, and you claimed a kinematic contradiction, and when your error was pointed out (for the 20th time) you tried to obfuscate by specifying different dynamical conditions, and it is explained to you that (1) those
do not change the relations between the kinematics, and (2) we could just as well describe the dynamical relations for the two systems of coordinates if you provided the requisite information (which you didn't). Again, this is all math. The physics is
entirely contained in the proposition that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which you have stipulated. Now do you understand? [Prediction: At this point you will run away again.]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:02:24 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:14:56 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

It sounds like you are saying that you agree that the material properties affect the forces required to carry out the stipulated motions...

You're confused. You claimed that, given the stipulated kinematics of the situation, expressing those kinematics in terms of different systems of coordinates (related by Lorentz transformations) leads to contradictory results. I explained why your

claim is false (not to mention idiotic, and reminded you that this has all been explained to you previously). Then, since you expressed confusion about some irrelevant possible "differences" in the dynamics, I pointed out that the forces required to
produce the stipulated kinematics obviously depend on many things such as material properties that you have not specified. By explaining this to you (for the 20th time), I am not "agreeing" with you, because your claims rest on the idiotic denial of this
very thing. Your false claim of a contradiction concerned pure kinematics.

Example: Suppose two stationary objects on a line are separated by 10 meters, and there is a rubber cord connecting them. If we move the right hand object 5 meters to the right, what is the separation between objects now? Well, the answer is 15 meters.

You see? The properties of the rubber cord, its length, how much force it applies, whether or not it breaks, its initial tension, etc., have no relevance to the question, because the kinematics were fully specified. And we can describe this in terms of
different coordinate systems and there is obviously no contradiction; the cord is still irrelevant. If you want to talk about forces, you must specify much more information, about initial tensions and material properties, and so on, and then you must
understand how the descriptions of forces depend on the coordinate system. But that doesn't affect the relationship between the stipulated kinematics as described in terms of the two systems of coordinates.

but that doesn't affect the math results of relativity.

Again, your brain has severe malfunctioned. What you are doing (as always) is specifying some kinematical situation, and then asking how the descriptions of this situation in terms of two different systems of coordinates related by Lorentz

transformation are related to each other. That is pure math (which you always get wrong). Even if you were able to provide all the information necessary to specify the forces involved in the stipulated kinematics, we could then just as easily describe
those forces in terms of the different systems of coordinates, and, again, this is pure math. The physics is already agreed once you have stipulated that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. If you were really
trying to dispute local Lorentz invariance (special relativity), this is what you would have to challenge... but you never do this. You just waste your time making dumb math mistakes, never noticing that a simple linear transformation of coordinates
cannot possibly lead to any inconsistency.

Why aren't the math results affected?

Again, your brain has severely malfunctioned. Math is just the language used to describe both the kinematics and the dynamics, and special relativity treats all of this perfectly well, but you have not described anything about the dynamics. Your

scenario focused entirely on the kinematics, and you claimed a kinematic contradiction, and when your error was pointed out (for the 20th time) you tried to obfuscate by specifying different dynamical conditions, and it is explained to you that (1) those
do not change the relations between the kinematics, and (2) we could just as well describe the dynamical relations for the two systems of coordinates if you provided the requisite information (which you didn't). Again, this is all math. The physics is
entirely contained in the proposition that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, which you have stipulated. Now do you understand? [Prediction: At this point you will run away again.]

Biil,
You wrote: "Example: Suppose two stationary objects on a line are separated by 10 meters, and there is a rubber cord connecting them. If we move the right hand object 5 meters to the right, what is the separation between objects now? Well, the answer
is 15 meters. You see? The properties of the rubber cord, its length, how much force it applies, whether or not it breaks, its initial tension, etc., have no relevance to the question, because the kinematics were fully specified."
When I tried to do that scenario you just stated using a rubber hose connecting two objects that are 10 meters apart, and I move the right hand object 5 meters to the right, the left hand object also moves 5 meters to the right keeping the separation
between the two object at 10 meters. If instead I move the righthand object to the left by 5 meters, the separation is now only 5 meters. Try it yourself!! So your statement doesn't follow actual physics properties.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:38:30 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

When I tried to do that scenario you just stated using a rubber hose connecting two objects that are 10 meters apart, and I move the right hand object 5 meters to the right, the left hand object also moves 5 meters...

The intent was to stipulate that the left hand object remains in place and the right hand object moves 5 meters to the right. You see, it is tautological, just as are each of the scenarios you describe. Do you understand why, given the stipulation that
the left object remains in place and the right moves 5 meters to the right, making them 15 meters apart, that they are 15 meters apart, and if the cord would prevent this from happening, then the stipulated premise is impossible? And do you understand
that in neither case does this show that Euclidean geometry is inconsistent?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:58:25 AM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:38:30 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

When I tried to do that scenario you just stated using a rubber hose connecting two objects that are 10 meters apart, and I move the right hand object 5 meters to the right, the left hand object also moves 5 meters...

The intent was to stipulate that the left hand object remains in place and the right hand object moves 5 meters to the right. You see, it is tautological, just as are each of the scenarios you describe. Do you understand why, given the stipulation that

the left object remains in place and the right moves 5 meters to the right, making them 15 meters apart, that they are 15 meters apart, and if the cord would prevent this from happening, then the stipulated premise is impossible? And do you understand
that in neither case does this show that Euclidean geometry is inconsistent?

I follow the math in your example, but relativity includes physics. You keep implying that we should ignore the physics (as in your example by now saying the left hand object remains in place by some mechanism) when we discuss scenarios as in your simple
scenario of moving an object 5 meters.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:06:43 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

I follow the math in your example, but relativity includes physics.

The example of the two objects and the elastic cord also involved physics, so your statement is pointless.

You keep implying that we should ignore the physics

Not at all, you have already stipulated the physics, i.e., you are taking as your premise that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and you are just struggling to apply this to express the description of events in
terms of two different systems S0 and S1. This is entirely because of your math mistakes. There is no physics involved in your (fallacious) reasoning. I actually encourage to actually think about the physics, but you refuse. You are obsessed and
fixated on finding a contradiction in the math, which is just insane.

(as in your example by now saying the left hand object remains in place by some mechanism) when we discuss scenarios as in your simple scenario of moving an object 5 meters.

Not at all, I'm pointing out the distinction between kinematics and mechanics, and the fact that all your scenarios (and the contradictions you fantasize) are purely kinematic... and utterly fallacious. Again, you have stipulated a locus of particles
configured as a straight line parallel to and revolving around the x axis and translating in the x direction at speed v, all in terms of S1, and then you specify that the angular speed is gradually reduced to zero, while always keeping the locus straight
and parallel to the x axis and translating at v in terms of S1. This fully specifies the kinematics of the situation; the forces forces involved are irrelevant to your absurd claim that the kinematics entail an inconsistency when described in terms of
S0.

Again, the physical content of special relativity is local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws, which entails that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. Now, you have stipulated this, and your infantile quest
is to show that this premise implies some contradiction... despite that fact that each time you fantasize that you have found such a contradiction it is instantly shown to be purely a result of your math errors.

Look, suppose we draw two grids on a golf putting green with red and yellow chalk, and we describe the trajectory of a putt in terms of the red grid. Your insane quest is to prove that the ball goes into the hole when described in terms of the red grid,
but when described in terms of the yellow grid it karooms off into the sand trap. Can you see why you will never be successful in your insane quest? [Hint: Changing the labels of events does not change the events.]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:07:39 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:06:43 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

I follow the math in your example, but relativity includes physics.

The example of the two objects and the elastic cord also involved physics, so your statement is pointless.

You keep implying that we should ignore the physics

Not at all, you have already stipulated the physics, i.e., you are taking as your premise that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, and you are just struggling to apply this to express the description of events

in terms of two different systems S0 and S1. This is entirely because of your math mistakes. There is no physics involved in your (fallacious) reasoning. I actually encourage to actually think about the physics, but you refuse. You are obsessed and
fixated on finding a contradiction in the math, which is just insane.

(as in your example by now saying the left hand object remains in place by some mechanism) when we discuss scenarios as in your simple scenario of moving an object 5 meters.

Not at all, I'm pointing out the distinction between kinematics and mechanics, and the fact that all your scenarios (and the contradictions you fantasize) are purely kinematic... and utterly fallacious. Again, you have stipulated a locus of particles

configured as a straight line parallel to and revolving around the x axis and translating in the x direction at speed v, all in terms of S1, and then you specify that the angular speed is gradually reduced to zero, while always keeping the locus straight
and parallel to the x axis and translating at v in terms of S1. This fully specifies the kinematics of the situation; the forces forces involved are irrelevant to your absurd claim that the kinematics entail an inconsistency when described in terms of S0.

Again, the physical content of special relativity is local Lorentz invariance of all physical laws, which entails that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. Now, you have stipulated this, and your infantile quest

is to show that this premise implies some contradiction... despite that fact that each time you fantasize that you have found such a contradiction it is instantly shown to be purely a result of your math errors.

Look, suppose we draw two grids on a golf putting green with red and yellow chalk, and we describe the trajectory of a putt in terms of the red grid. Your insane quest is to prove that the ball goes into the hole when described in terms of the red grid,

but when described in terms of the yellow grid it karooms off into the sand trap. Can you see why you will never be successful in your insane quest? [Hint: Changing the labels of events does not change the events.]

Bill,
In your scenario of two objects separated by 10 meters with a rubber cord between them, if the two objects and rubber cord were in space, and you moved the right hand object to the right by 5 meters, do you really think the two objects would end up
exactly 5 meters apart. I would think moving the right hand object by 5 meters would momentarily stretch the rubber cord. That would cause the left hand object to accelerate but the rubber band would have to have some rigid property that keeps it exactly
spanned at 10 meters when it comes to a rest. That would depend on the weights of the two objects and also the material structure and size of the rubber cord. In every scenario these could be all different resulting in different distances between the
two objects when the right hand object is moved 5 meters to the right. Do you agree with that?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:50:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

In your scenario of two objects separated by 10 meters with a rubber cord between them, if the two objects and rubber cord were in space, and you moved the right hand object to the right by 5 meters, do you really think the two objects would end up exactly [15] meters apart.

If the requisite forces are applied to objects to cause them to be X meters apart, then those object will be X meters apart. You see, in each of your scenarios, you invariably specify something like two objects being X meters apart (or some such
kinematic condition), and then you try to argue that this contradicts the description of those objects in terms of some other coordinate system. That, of course, is insane. As I've told you a hundred times, you are stipulating the application of
whatever forces are required to achieve the kinematic situation that you fantasized. So the forces are irrelevant to the evisceration of your fallacious reasoning.

If you really were interested in the physics of special relativity, you would ask something like "If a material object initially at rest in S is subjected to a constant force, will it undergo constant acceleration in terms of S (as Newton thought), or
will it asymptotically approach the speed c?" But you never ask questions like that. You are fixated on the insane quest to find a contradiction in 4th grade algebra.

I would think moving the right hand object by 5 meters would momentarily stretch the rubber cord.

Not necessarily... the cord could be 100 meters long, so it isn't even taut, and it isn't apply any force, and so on, but this is all irrelevant, because you are stipulating that forces are applied to the objects to hold one in place and move the other 5
meters. This is the level of your question. You never even begin to define or discuss the forces that are required to move the objects in the way you are specifying that they move... and it doesn't matter, since you are just assuming that the requisite
forces are applied. I have frequently pointed out to you things like "this won't happen by accident", and "you will need to apply independent forces to each individual disk slice to force them to behave this way", and so on... and you stupidly ignore
all of those statements.

Again, if you look at the scenario you specified (and all the other scenarios you have ever specified) you will see that you are just specifying the kinematiucs, and stipulating that the requisite forces are being applied to make the objects move in the
specified way. All your alleged contradictions are purely kinematic, purely mathematical, and you are in essence trying to prove that 4th grade algebra is self-contradictory, or that the golf ball that goes into then hole also karooms into the sand trap,
depending on which coordinate systems you use. Your insane quest is incredibly dumb. Agreed?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:33:26 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:50:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

In your scenario of two objects separated by 10 meters with a rubber cord between them, if the two objects and rubber cord were in space, and you moved the right hand object to the right by 5 meters, do you really think the two objects would end up exactly [15] meters apart.

If the requisite forces are applied to objects to cause them to be X meters apart, then those object will be X meters apart. You see, in each of your scenarios, you invariably specify something like two objects being X meters apart (or some such

kinematic condition), and then you try to argue that this contradicts the description of those objects in terms of some other coordinate system. That, of course, is insane. As I've told you a hundred times, you are stipulating the application of whatever
forces are required to achieve the kinematic situation that you fantasized. So the forces are irrelevant to the evisceration of your fallacious reasoning.

If you really were interested in the physics of special relativity, you would ask something like "If a material object initially at rest in S is subjected to a constant force, will it undergo constant acceleration in terms of S (as Newton thought), or

will it asymptotically approach the speed c?" But you never ask questions like that. You are fixated on the insane quest to find a contradiction in 4th grade algebra.

I would think moving the right hand object by 5 meters would momentarily stretch the rubber cord.

Not necessarily... the cord could be 100 meters long, so it isn't even taut, and it isn't apply any force, and so on, but this is all irrelevant, because you are stipulating that forces are applied to the objects to hold one in place and move the other

5 meters. This is the level of your question. You never even begin to define or discuss the forces that are required to move the objects in the way you are specifying that they move... and it doesn't matter, since you are just assuming that the requisite
forces are applied. I have frequently pointed out to you things like "this won't happen by accident", and "you will need to apply independent forces to each individual disk slice to force them to behave this way", and so on... and you stupidly ignore all
of those statements.

Again, if you look at the scenario you specified (and all the other scenarios you have ever specified) you will see that you are just specifying the kinematiucs, and stipulating that the requisite forces are being applied to make the objects move in

the specified way. All your alleged contradictions are purely kinematic, purely mathematical, and you are in essence trying to prove that 4th grade algebra is self-contradictory, or that the golf ball that goes into then hole also karooms into the sand
trap, depending on which coordinate systems you use. Your insane quest is incredibly dumb. Agreed?

Bill,
Now you imply if the rubber cord is 100 meters long, and the two objects connected by the rubber cord are 10 meters apart, and you move the righthand object to the right by 5 meters, the separation between the two objects will now be about 15 meters
apart. That contradicts your statement that the objects will be 10 meters apart. So you must agree that the mechanical forces between objects must affect the results. Yes or no?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:04:45 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Now you imply if the rubber cord is 100 meters long, and the two objects connected by the rubber cord are 10 meters apart, and you move the righthand object to the right by 5 meters [and the left remains in place], the separation
between the two objects will now be about 15 meters apart.

Right! Bravo.

That contradicts your statement that the objects will be 10 meters apart.

No, your brain has malfunctioned again. The objects are initially 10 meters apart, and then the left object ramins in place and the right object move 5 meters to the right, so they are now 15 meters apart. The fact that they may have a 100 meter (or
1000 meter) coiled-up slack cord connecting them is irrelevant. Just as is the fact that the cord may be short and break as soon as the right object is move a couple of meters. For npurposes of specifying the kinematics, all that matters is the
specification of the kinematics. Duh squared. Understand?

So you must agree that the mechanical forces between objects
must affect the results.

No, to the contrary, you've just learned that when two objects are specified to be first 10 meters apart and then 15 meters apart, they are *according to that specification* first 10 meters apart and then 15 meters apart. This specification entails the
stipulation of whatever forces are necessary to cause this to happen. That's why I'm alwayts able to instantly answer all your questions, even though you never specify the forces. I simply take you at your word that (for example) the line is maintained
straight in terms of S1 and the rotation rate of the slices are slowed to zero. This fully specifies what happens, in terms of both systems of coordinates, and thereby debunks your idiotic claim of contradiction.

And I have many times carefully informed you that your idiotic Rube Goldberg premises invariably require very stringent sets of coordinates forces to make them happen, and you stupidly disregard this, even though confusion about this is what underlies
your idiotic fallacies.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:45:02 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:04:45 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

Now you imply if the rubber cord is 100 meters long, and the two objects connected by the rubber cord are 10 meters apart, and you move the righthand
object to the right by 5 meters [and the left remains in place], the separation
between the two objects will now be about 15 meters apart.

Right! Bravo.

That contradicts your statement that the objects will be 10 meters apart.

No, your brain has malfunctioned again. The objects are initially 10 meters apart, and then the left object ramins in place and the right object move 5 meters to the right, so they are now 15 meters apart. The fact that they may have a 100 meter (or

1000 meter) coiled-up slack cord connecting them is irrelevant. Just as is the fact that the cord may be short and break as soon as the right object is move a couple of meters. For npurposes of specifying the kinematics, all that matters is the
specification of the kinematics. Duh squared. Understand?

So you must agree that the mechanical forces between objects
must affect the results.

No, to the contrary, you've just learned that when two objects are specified to be first 10 meters apart and then 15 meters apart, they are *according to that specification* first 10 meters apart and then 15 meters apart. This specification entails the

stipulation of whatever forces are necessary to cause this to happen. That's why I'm alwayts able to instantly answer all your questions, even though you never specify the forces. I simply take you at your word that (for example) the line is maintained
straight in terms of S1 and the rotation rate of the slices are slowed to zero. This fully specifies what happens, in terms of both systems of coordinates, and thereby debunks your idiotic claim of contradiction.

And I have many times carefully informed you that your idiotic Rube Goldberg premises invariably require very stringent sets of coordinates forces to make them happen, and you stupidly disregard this, even though confusion about this is what underlies

your idiotic fallacies.

Bill,
So why if I do the actual experiment with a 10 meter hose connected to the two objects that have an initial separation of 10 meters and I move the righthand object to the right by 5 meters, and I then measure the separation between the two objects I
measure about 10 meters and not anywhere close to 15 meters?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:32:07 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

So why if I do the actual experiment...

It isn't an experiment, it's a sequence of events that was specified, resulting in a distance of 15 meters. If you arrange for objects to do something else, then those objects do something else. Duh. Likewise, you asked about a revolving and
translating line that is straight in terms of S1 and then the angular velocity is slowed to zero, always maintaining the line straight in terms of S1, which you stupidly thought implied a contradiction. Your stupid mistake was explained (you're welcome).
If you are now saying that you really don't care about the kinematic scenario you posed, this tells us nothing about physics, it just tells us that you are a contemptible lying troll. Do you understand this?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:00:24 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:32:07 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

So why if I do the actual experiment...

It isn't an experiment, it's a sequence of events that was specified, resulting in a distance of 15 meters. If you arrange for objects to do something else, then those objects do something else. Duh. Likewise, you asked about a revolving and

translating line that is straight in terms of S1 and then the angular velocity is slowed to zero, always maintaining the line straight in terms of S1, which you stupidly thought implied a contradiction. Your stupid mistake was explained (you're welcome).
If you are now saying that you really don't care about the kinematic scenario you posed, this tells us nothing about physics, it just tells us that you are a contemptible lying troll. Do you understand this?
In my posted scenario, in frame S1, all points in a straight line along the x-axis of the rotating cylinder simultaneously had objects touching it to cause the cylinder to slowly, slowly stop rotating. If observers in S1 started the rotation of all
points along the x-axis of the cylinder cylinder simultaneously, observers in S0 observe that one end of the cylinder started its rotation 1 second before the other end. When the rotation rate reaches 10 revolutions per second as measured in S0, this
does not mean that one end of the cylinder rotated 10 times more than the other end of the cylinder. That inference that it does mean that does not include any mechanical effects within the cylinder itself that affect its motion.
In your 10 meter simple example, when the rubber cord connects two objects that are 10 meters apart, the mechanical structure of the cord affects the simple outcome. In the rotating cylinder scenario, the mechanical structure of the cylinder affects
the final outcome. Why do you not agree that the mechanical structure of the cylinder affects the physics result in the scenario I posted?
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 4:35:01 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:

In your 10 meter simple example, when the rubber cord connects two
objects that are 10 meters apart, the mechanical structure of the cord affects the simple outcome.

No, the outcome has been specified: They began 10 meters apart and then the left object remains in place and the right object moves 5 meters to the right. How far apart are they now? Answer: "15 meters, provided the objects really behave as specified,
which would take the application of sufficient forces". The premise of the question has been explicitly clarified to be that whatever forces are required to make this happen are applied. If, after the question has been answered, and the questioner has
agreed that the requisite forces are applied to make the objects move as specified, the questioner says "No, becasuse the requisite forces really are NOT applied to make the objects move as I specified and agreed", then this tells us nothing about
physics, it just tells us the questioner is a contemptible lying troll. Understand?

In the rotating cylinder scenario, the mechanical structure of the cylinder affects the final outcome.

Again, the final outcome has been specified: The line is straight and revolving and translating as specified in terms of S1, and then the angular velocity is reduced to zero, always keeping the light straight in terms of S1. [Quote: "As measured in F1,
all points of that line are always parallel to the x-axis as the cylinder rotates."] What is the shape of the line at an instant of S0? Answer, it is initially a helix with 10 windings and unwinds to straight, provided the objects really behave as
specified, which would take the application of sufficient forces".

Again, the premise of the question has been explicitly clarified to be that whatever forces are required to make the line behave as specified are applied. If, after the question has been answered, and the questioner has agreed that the requisite forces
are applied to make the particles of the line move as specified, the questioner says "No, becasuse the requisite forces really are NOT applied to make the particles move as I specified and agreed", then this tells us nothing about physics, it just tells
us the questioner is a contemptible lying troll. Understand?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)