Re: Barn-Pole Nuts & Bolts contradiction

Dear David,

On Aug 28, 6:45 pm, dlzc <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear harry:

On Aug 28, 9:23 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:





"dlzc" <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1188316488.615852.99520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
...
From the context, I thought everyone
would have known I meant linear
acceleration. I should have been
more precise in the phrasing so as
not to confuse others.

Acceleration is acceleration, David.
Linear or not. You are already in a
realm where SR does explicitly not
apply. It may be reasonably *extended*
to this problem... but if you are
speaking to posterity, you *are*
confusing the issue.

That's wrong: from the start, SRT applied
to *any* motion (in particular
accelerating electrons) as described
relative to inertial reference frames.

Since this is not a complete sentence,

It is a complete sentence. Still shorter: SRT always applied to
accelerated motion relative to inertial frames.

I cannot guess which thing(s)
you disagree with:
- angular and linear accleration both are accelerations,
- Special Relativity is derived for inertial (non-acclerating) frames,
- Special Relativity can be reasonably extended to some special
acclerating frames, and yield verified agreement with experiment,
- David is confusing the issue "for posterity" by claiming there is no
accleration.

I disagree with none of those :-)

[snip rest that seems to disagree with
my explanation].

Disagree with the explanation?

It's meant as a warning for the other David: he should not mix your
explanation with mine, since our answers disagree (it turns out that
it's due to handling a different problem, see below).

The entire motion of the rod is not
important to the analysis. At the "throat" of individual threads, the
motion of the mating surface is entirely parallel to the thread... so
no contraction should occur at this location.

I just criticized David S. for changing the problem - and now here you
switched to other frames than he asked about (that was not immediately
clear to me). Useful? I doubt it, but let him answer.

With acceleration,
other things may be expected to be seen other places (your
explanation, I believe), but local to each thread, no contraction
expected to adjacent threads.

I think that I answered his question. But we'll see!

Regards,
Harald


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Barn-Pole Nuts & Bolts contradiction
    ... acceleration. ... Linear or not. ... Special Relativity is derived for inertial frames, ... - David is confusing the issue "for posterity" by claiming there is no ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Barn-Pole Nuts & Bolts contradiction
    ... Linear or not. ... - David is confusing the issue "for posterity" by claiming there is no ... Disagree with the explanation? ... With acceleration, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: TomToms stupidity (re: was always TomToms stupidity)
    ... >> The simplest way to see it is to stop the acceleration so the rod is at ... which requires that the rod's proper length ... > as a general description for noninertial frames (as I've been saying ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: TomToms stupidity (re: was always TomToms stupidity)
    ... ONLY it's change of coordinates (it's acceleration) and you maintained ... as a general description for noninertial frames (as I've been saying ... This is WHY the rulers proper length doesn't ever change and WHY you ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: relativistic centrifuge
    ... > accelerated reference frames and reference frames in gravitation ... General relativity states that clocks run ... erroneous radius, R, because, for centrifugal force (|v| is ... The same question applies to the acceleration, ...
    (sci.physics)