Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlintel@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:42:50 +0100
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3e940912-c679-4791-9b70-702111ed1a3a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
harry wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:93e83ea6-511b-4f00-b55a-0004ba95ab77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
harry wrote:
A few years ago I went through
exactly the same proces as you now, for at first sight it seemed=====
plausible
that rotation of "rigid" shafts could break the PoR. I had in mind to
do
an
experiment to break the PoR and I read all the literature about it,
with
an
unexpecrted result.
What result, The Galilean one?
No, as I had explained above.
Wrt one observer, in the srt context, his gearings are straight and
run parallel to each other.
Apparently you put the hears different from the way I understood.
This is by definition of initial
conditions. Wrt the same observer the other shaft's gearings are
helical. How much math would it take to convince you that a straight
line cannot be superposed over a helix, or two show that the spin
rates are unequal?
I was also once in your shoes, briefly.
The spin rates appear to be unequal according to SRT, except as measured
in
a frame relative to which the two have equal speed. What is required is
the
full calculation of a precise case; the article I referred you to (which
doesn't have gears but two wheels with holes) didn't do any less either.
Note that it's much easier to show that it doesn't work (if this were the
case) then it is to show that it works as you only need to show one exact
part or location that jams or doesn't fit!
Harald
So the clocks only "appear" to tick at different rates? I don't think
Einstein would have agreed with that.
No. FYI, my interpretation: only according to one opinion out of an infinite
number of opinions, they tick at the same rate, thus I think it's safe to
assume that they tick at different rates. According to SRT, it's in the eyes
of the beholder who is moving and thus which is ticking at a slower rate.
And Einstein's interpretation @1905: "the X dimension appears shortened "
and "the time marked by the [moving] clock (viewed in the stationary system)
is slow".
Whatever: your disagreement here isn't with interpretations of measurements
(=philosophy) but about what will be measured according to theory (=physics;
SRT is a theory of physics). Please don't confuse the two, eventhough many
people DO confuse the two.
Good evening,
Harald
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: RP
- Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: harry
- Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: RP
- Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: harry
- Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: harry
- Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: RP
- Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: harry
- Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: RP
- Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: harry
- Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- From: RP
- May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- Prev by Date: Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
- Next by Date: Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- Previous by thread: Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- Next by thread: Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
