Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation has completed stopped.
Does physics contradict the math in this relativity scenario?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.
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
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 thecylinder 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 frictionwith 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
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 beforethe 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
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
Does physics contradict the math in this relativity scenario?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.
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
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 thecylinder 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 causesfriction 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
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 yearsbefore 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
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
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:28:40 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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 how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotationYou'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,
has completed stopped.
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 how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotationYou'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,
has completed stopped.
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].
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.
[What mental illness would cause a grown man to ask] Why the angular velocity of the rotation has zero effect on the outcome.
On 06-Sept-23 12:28 pm, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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.
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
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.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
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. ThereforeNow 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
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 notHowever, 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
Therefore the line as measured in F0 does not end up with all points of the line parallel to the x-axis.There is no physics there, there is only math. If there's a
Please explain how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotation has completed stopped.
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX
contradiction, it's because you got the math wrong.
Sylvia.
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 5:25:34 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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 how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotationYou'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
has completed stopped.
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 forcesHow 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 majorityThen 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
of the cylinder without any friction object touching 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.[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
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 how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotationYou'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
has completed stopped.
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 forcesHow 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 majorityThen 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
of the cylinder without any friction object touching 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.[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
Did you just arbitrarily choose which frame started the initial rotation of the
cylinder to fit your conclusion?
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 5:53:40 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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 how to reconcile the views of F0 versus F1 when the rotationYou'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
has completed stopped.
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 forcesHow 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 majorityThen 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
of the cylinder without any friction object touching it.
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.[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
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),Did you just arbitrarily choose which frame started the initial rotation of theThere 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
cylinder to fit your conclusion?
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?
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 notYou 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
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?
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:00:05 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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
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
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.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
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 theforces 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?
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?
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:14:56 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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
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
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
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 describebut 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
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) thoseWhy 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
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...
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:38:30 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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
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
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.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:06:43 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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
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 physicsNot 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
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(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
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 questis 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.]
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.
I would think moving the right hand object by 5 meters would momentarily stretch the rubber cord.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:50:22 AM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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
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
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), orwill 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.
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 requisiteI 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
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 inthe 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
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.
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.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 3:04:45 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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
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 righthandRight! Bravo.
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.
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
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 maintainedSo you must agree that the mechanical forces between objectsNo, 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
must affect the results.
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 underliesyour idiotic fallacies.
So why if I do the actual experiment...
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:32:07 PM UTC-7, sep...@yahoo.com wrote: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).
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
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 310 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 33:58:56 |
Calls: | 6,949 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,397 |
Messages: | 5,441,779 |