Re: May sound silly, but then it isn't my theory.

RP wrote:
On Nov 14, 9:34 am, "harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"harry" <harald.NOTTHISvanlin...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1226504570_121@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx







"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3e940912-c679-4791-9b70-702111ed1a3a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

harry wrote:
"RP" <no_mail_no_s...@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

Hey Richard,
I'm still waiting for your calculation...
When you get to it, don't forget to account for:
- time dilation (effect: slower rotation)
- length contraction (effect: contracted spacings)
- the twisting of the shaft (effect: increased spacings and increased
longitudinal gear speed)

Harald- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are no effects to account for on one of the shafts wrt its own
rest frame. The other shaft, wrt that same frame will be twisted into
a helix, that is, according to the lorentz transform for time. How
much math would be required for you to understand that a straight line
cannot be superposed over a helix?

Enough to show that you cannot come up with a contradiction! :-)

I forgot, you're still under the impression that Lorentz's theory is
equivalent to Einstein's theory.

That is well known and not the issue here - as I already told you. You may
join philosophy discussions with John Kennaugh in the other thread, here you
entered in the real of mathematical physics. :-)

In Lorentz's view the ticking rates of the counter-moving clocks is
absolute, i.e., they are absolutely ticking slower than the clock in
lab frame.

Wrong. But as I said, first come with your calculation!

Harald


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast