Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: OWLS is not equal to c
Next: Mathematical Inconsistencies in Einstein's Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
From: jgreen on 17 Aug 2005 23:27 (sigh) A vertical axle on a non-rotating planet. Identical mechanical clocks connected at top and bottom by identical mechanisms. The axle rotates (is driven) at constant revs from the base. What do the two clocks read after an elapsed time? What does a nuclear clock at the top, but unconnected physically to the axle, read ref the other two????????? (nuclear clock being synchronised with the base clock before experiment begun). If there IS a discrepency, which is wrong? (I mentioned light in order to head off the wild goose chase which you were likely to introduce about the two connected clocks appearing to show differring times due to the delay in reading caused by information transfer not being instantaneous due to emr velocity) Jim Greenfield c'=c+v
From: TokaMundo on 18 Aug 2005 11:07 On 17 Aug 2005 10:18:41 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> Gave us: >> Another rabbitter about a once a month spin is obviously >> pathetically hiding within obfuscation, and has NO intention >> of addressing the real arguement as to what happens to the >> clocks/axle operating in an alterring gravitational field. > >As I said in my last post to you, if you clearly state >the conditions of the thought experiment, I will reply >to the best of my ability. > Hehehe... of course it fluctuates. There are at least nine other planets out there whose fields we traverse through at all times. What I find interesting is how some planets' orbits are tilted, as well as a couple comets. I find that odd. It suggests that at one time a particularly strong influence got hold of them a bit more than that of our sun, no? Did anybody see the new Milky Way construction shots? Looks pretty cool... where we live. I think that Celestia is the bomb diggity! I zoom out to stars, and flip her back around to point back at the sun. I think it's pretty cool that we have a 3-d rendering of thousands of precise star locations. I think that is unreal! For y'all to think that life only exists on this little rock... well... it's nearly impossible that it hasn't rooted itself in other places.
From: russell on 18 Aug 2005 12:12 jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: [snip androcrap] > Don't you just love it, when the DHR's, with their 'deep' and God-given > understanding of GR, cannot even agree on such a simple proposition as > to whether the axle will twist or not?? Of course it all depends on what you attach the axle to, how strong the attachment is, etc. The presenters of this gedanken have given different versions of it, and I daresay yours is different from Androcles's. One version -- perfect rigidity in the axle and perfect regulation of speed at each end -- is physically impossible, like asking what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. Btw, I do not claim my understanding is deep, and as far as I can say, what understanding I *do* have has come with a lot of work, not as a gift from God. Fortunately, you have not presented any deep problem. > What shall they do with this FREE energy?? Obviously, if the axle is > being twisted by a force, one could apply a friction brake to one end, > and harnesss the heat!!! Yes of course one could do that, but why do you call it FREE? The sexton who winds Androcles's church clocks does not think his labor is free. You and Androcles seem to think that if you simply call something a clock, that act of naming in itself makes it run without any power being supplied. Or, what is equally daft, you think (despite having no evidence) that serious physicists are making this claim.
From: George Dishman on 19 Aug 2005 06:49 Hi Jim, Since nobody else has replied, I'll say a few words. I haven't been following the thread so I'll just respond to what you ask here. <jgreen(a)seol.net.au> wrote in message news:1124335652.671978.5240(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > (sigh) > A vertical axle on a non-rotating planet. > Identical mechanical clocks connected at top and bottom by identical > mechanisms. To start, let's say what would be seen if only one was connected to the shaft and then consider what would happen if we try to connect the other. > The axle rotates (is driven) at constant revs from the base. > What do the two clocks read after an elapsed time? What you would see at the top would be hands on the axle rotating slightly slower than the hands on the local clock. If you then try to couple them, several things might happen. The coupling might break, the two sets of hands might rotate at the speed of the higher clock while the lower motor would take less power, the motors might burn out or the shaft might twist, etc.. > What does a nuclear clock at the top, but unconnected physically to the > axle, read ref the other two????????? (nuclear clock being synchronised > with the base clock before experiment begun). I don't know what mean by "a nuclear clock". Assuming the mechanical clocks are properly designed using good quality quartz crystals, atomic clocks would give identical measurements but with less random noise. > If there IS a discrepency, which is wrong? Neither, our best understanding of nature is that time is not universal. George
From: jgreen on 20 Aug 2005 03:19
russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > jgreen(a)seol.net.au wrote: > > [snip androcrap] > > > Don't you just love it, when the DHR's, with their 'deep' and God-given > > understanding of GR, cannot even agree on such a simple proposition as > > to whether the axle will twist or not?? > > Of course it all depends on what you attach the axle to, > how strong the attachment is, etc. The presenters of this > gedanken have given different versions of it, and I daresay > yours is different from Androcles's. One version -- perfect > rigidity in the axle and perfect regulation of speed at each > end -- is physically impossible, like asking what happens > when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. > > Btw, I do not claim my understanding is deep, and as far > as I can say, what understanding I *do* have has come with > a lot of work, not as a gift from God. Fortunately, you > have not presented any deep problem. > > > What shall they do with this FREE energy?? Obviously, if the axle is > > being twisted by a force, one could apply a friction brake to one end, > > and harnesss the heat!!! > > Yes of course one could do that, but why do you call it > FREE? The sexton who winds Androcles's church clocks > does not think his labor is free. > > You and Androcles seem to think that if you simply > call something a clock, that act of naming in itself > makes it run without any power being supplied. Or, > what is equally daft, you think (despite having no > evidence) that serious physicists are making this > claim. see reply to George D Jim G |