Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099


"Spaceman" <Realspace@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TLednZA0KfkQgXDenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"OG" <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:454jilF4vhbtU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| You say "you should not need transformations to measure stuff.", and
indeed
| you don't need transformations to measure stuff. What you do need is
| transformations to take measurements in one reference frame (B) and
express
| them in another reference frame (A). Measurement isn't a problem so long
as
| you stick to the same frame of reference.

If you need transformations to express measurements in
another frame, you are truly lost in the abstract world.

That is the sort of unthinking presupposition that is holding you back. You
know that the frames of reference of (A) and (B) are different, so you know
that at least one transformation is necessary (in this case subtracting 0.5c
from the velocity). What you have done is assume that that is the ONLY
transformation needed. You've oversimplified the problem.

but lets look at your shrinking wheel problem below.
and of course, you will have to do the math since I
refuse to tranform miles into
"shorter distances than miles simply because of motion"
so have a real go at it if you dare and we can see
what happens to your "mile" compared to my mile.


| You won't want to hear this, but if the wheel is spinning at that speed,
(B)
| would find that the diameter is no longer 1/2pi miles.

The 1 mile circumference wheel spinning at 93,000 rpms?
What is the "new circumference" you have figured for this wheel?
in other words..
How much does this single mile shrink from such a speed?


Mea Culpa, I mis-remembered an article I read from 1977.
Having checked back, the radius of the wheel remains unchanged, but the
circumference is no longer given by 2 * pi * r when the wheel is rotating at
high enough rates. The relation between the radius of the wheel and the
circumference is similar to the length of one of the lines of longitude as
you move away from the North Pole - initially, the circumference of a
circle around the N Pole is given by 2 * pi * r, but as the radius increases
the curvature of the earth reduces the length of the circumference relative
to the 'expected' result.

I don't have time to re-research the article now, but there is a 57 page
summary of "Space geometry in rotating reference frames " at
http://freeweb.supereva.com/solciclos/gron_d.pdf if you are interested.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speed gedanken time (repaired) time dilation 099
    ... | you don't need transformations to measure stuff. ... | them in another reference frame. ... but lets look at your shrinking wheel problem below. ... what happens to your "mile" compared to my mile. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Minkowski Metric Is Broken
    ... Math and physics are some powerful escapes of humanity but still the ... arbitrary reference frame to a passive rod in 4D Minkowski space. ... set of transformations out of all possible ones are jumps between ... tensor developments around arbitrary bases? ...
    (sci.physics)