Re: TomTom's stupidity (re: was always TomTom's stupidity)


Tom Roberts wrote:
> schoenfeld1@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > [...]

That's a handy way of dealing with your errors.

> You just don't understand the physical situation being discussed.

Actually it's you who doesn't understand what is being dicussed. I
*ALWAYS* said that SR predicts, under certain circumstances, that the
proper length of a frame changes and this is *WHY* SR fails as a
general description of noninertial frames. After your repeated attempts
to justify this perverse behaviour as "valid" with more perverse
behaviour, you finally understood why I was right.

Rather than admit error and move on, you decided to surreptitiously
snip my entire post and resort to childish accusations that I don't
understand.

> The requirement is that the two ends of the rod be accelerated with the
> same acceleration MEASURED IN THE INITIAL INERTIAL FRAME.
> That is an OUTRAGEOUS way to accelerate a rod.

Yes, it's "OUTRAGEOUS" but allowable in SR. Guess what, you've just
painfully learned why SR fails as a description of noninertial frames.

> About the only way to do
> it is to connect multiple rockets to the rod and program them to
> generate different proper accelerations at different points of the rod.
> This silly way to accelerate a rod REQUIRES that the rod be stretched in
> its co-moving frame (any of them, including the final inertial frame
> when all rockets have burned out).

More redherrings and excuses. It's a scenario which SR allows, and a
scenario which SR predicts "OUTRAGEOUS" results as you've painfully
learned. Sorry, but that's been my point all along - SR fails as a
general description of noninertial frames.


> All the outrageous things you point out are due to the stipulation that
> the rod be accelerated in that OUTRAGEOUS manner.

Yes, that's been your painful lesson. Do you understand now why I was
right in saying that SR fails as a general framework for noninertial
coordinates? Or do you think you can just dismiss this scenario because
it's "OUTRAGEOUS". Tough luck - you can't.

> For instance, the stiffness of the rod will affect the
> thrust programs of the rockets so that the above condition
> is met. The different rockets must stretch the rod, and
> how hard they must pull apart depends on its stiffness.
> <shrug>

Tough luck - both rods had the same mass and thus same acceleration
applied (i.e. same force/energy applied to accelerate both rod's). If
your ficticious "pull" does come about, then it will be the same for
both rod's and you should expect two different proper lengths since 1
rod is titanium and the other fairy-floss. Since they have the SAME
proper length, your entire argument falls apart rather dramatically. Of
course, the entire premise that it had a "pull" was false to begin
with, but you obviously didn't understand this.

> If, instead, the rod were accelerated using Born rigid motion, all the
> outrageous things you point out vanish. That would not be an outrageous
> way to accelerate it (e.g. put one rocket motor at its rear).

Well, well, well... Tough luck, Robert's - you wanna use rigid
accelerations everywhere in SR then justify it from first principles -
YOU CAN'T. That means you gotta admit these "outrageous" scenarios
which violate all physical laws.

Congratulations, you've just painfully learned why SR fails as a
general description of noninertial frames (as i've been saying all
along).


> This is all elementary and well known. Your inability to understand is
> puzzling, but I suspect that if you had ever bothered to do an actual
> computation you would have seen your mistake.
>
> Oh, wait -- you DID do a computation, and you REJECTED
> its result. Clearly you believe your personal delusions
> more than an actual computation. Rather than throwing a
> tantrum on the internet, perhaps you would be better
> served by trying to understand why this computation
> disagrees with what you expect. I have always found that
> personal understanding is FAR more rewarding than blaming
> others for my mistakes.
>
> I repeat: your computation gave the correct answer, and in the final
> inertial frame of your example the rod must be twice its original
> length. This silly result is not any indication that SR is wrong or
> inapplicable, it is due to the outrageous physical situation being
> discussed.

ROTFL!!!!! Classic.

"This silly result is not any indication that SR is wrong or
inapplicable, it is due to the outrageous physical situation being
discussed."



>
> Tom Roberts tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: TomToms stupidity (re: was always TomToms stupidity)
    ... >>> own reference frame. ... Let there be a rod initially at rest ... will be the ruler's proper length and rulers length in stationary ... > the left and right ends cannot accelerate identically. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: TomToms stupidity (re: was always TomToms stupidity)
    ... >The ruler instantaneously accelerates to velocity 0.866c. ... >What is the length of the ruler in A's frame? ... For example, if you accelerate ... If the proper length of the rod remains constant, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: TomToms stupidity (re: was always TomToms stupidity)
    ... >(acceleration was simultaneous everywhere in stationary frame) what ... rod comes to rest *before* the other end. ... >> the left and right ends cannot accelerate identically. ... write down the formula for the prediction of SR. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Rigid rod problem
    ... >> I don't see in what sense your first statement could ... If you choose a point on the rod a use its current speed as your FOR, ... exactly as it fits in our "rest" frame at the ... and will accelerate forever. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Simple length problem - for Todd, Harald, thinkers
    ... The results found in the moving frame are certainly 'logical' in the sense ... conveyor belt that lies in the x-y plane and the belt moves in the ... In the rest frame the rod is oriented at ... The springs are initially in a relaxed state before the ''rod'' ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)