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: Eric Gisse on 20 Aug 2005 15:44 [snip] Please don't waste your time trying to educate him. He is in his 70s, and believes the most insane things about mathematics and physics. It does no good to attempt to teach him.
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Aug 2005 18:51 On 20 Aug 2005 08:57:07 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: > >> The whole point of splitting the explanation into >> two stages was to try to help you grasp what is >> to me obvious, the forces are produced solely by >> the motors driving the shaft. Imagine instead the >> shaft was horizontal. You attach a motor at each >> end and drive them at different speeds and the >> same effect occurs. The energy 'appears' because >> you have to connect the motors to a source of >> power if they are to turn the shaft. > >Jim hasn't explained how the "clocks" are supposed to be >connected to the axle. If the axle itself is meant to keep >time like a clock (say, like the shaft which turns a clock's >second hand), then he is definitely talking about a single >clock. Yet he insisted that there were two clocks, one at >the bottom and one at the top. I suspect that he only meant >that there were pointers or "clock hands" at the bottom and >top of the axle, and that the only motor driving it is the >one at the bottom, but until he says what he has in mind, >we can only speculate. > >>> Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted >>> around and around just because 'time' is passing >>> (and the axle spinning) >> >> The fact is that it would. > >If you think the axle would become twisted, then I'm quite >sure that your understanding of the thought experiment setup >is different from his. With only one motor connected to the >axle, it would not become twisted. Although he has said >there are two clocks connected to the axle, he has said only >one motor is driving it. He needs to clarify that confused >description. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis Jim has every right to assume that most contributors to this NG have some kind of intelligence which enables them to occasionally apply their own deductive powers in cases when every minute detail is not spelled out as though for a 2yo kid.. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Jeff Root on 21 Aug 2005 23:04 Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: >> George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: >> >>> The whole point of splitting the explanation into >>> two stages was to try to help you grasp what is >>> to me obvious, the forces are produced solely by >>> the motors driving the shaft. Imagine instead the >>> shaft was horizontal. You attach a motor at each >>> end and drive them at different speeds and the >>> same effect occurs. The energy 'appears' because >>> you have to connect the motors to a source of >>> power if they are to turn the shaft. >> >> Jim hasn't explained how the "clocks" are supposed to be >> connected to the axle. If the axle itself is meant to keep >> time like a clock (say, like the shaft which turns a clock's >> second hand), then he is definitely talking about a single >> clock. Yet he insisted that there were two clocks, one at >> the bottom and one at the top. I suspect that he only meant >> that there were pointers or "clock hands" at the bottom and >> top of the axle, and that the only motor driving it is the >> one at the bottom, but until he says what he has in mind, >> we can only speculate. >> >>>> Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted >>>> around and around just because 'time' is passing >>>> (and the axle spinning) >>> >>> The fact is that it would. >> >> If you think the axle would become twisted, then I'm quite >> sure that your understanding of the thought experiment setup >> is different from his. With only one motor connected to the >> axle, it would not become twisted. Although he has said >> there are two clocks connected to the axle, he has said only >> one motor is driving it. He needs to clarify that confused >> description. > > Jim has every right to assume that most contributors to this > NG have some kind of intelligence which enables them to > occasionally apply their own deductive powers in cases when > every minute detail is not spelled out as though for a 2yo > kid.. Sure. But it still isn't clear what he meant by "two clocks", or how those two clocks are connected to the axle. George guessed that each of the two clocks has its own motor or other mechanism to make it run, since that is what makes them clocks. I, on the other hand, guess that Jim was talking about clock hands at each end of the axle, being driven by the rotation of the axle, which is, in turn, driven at its bottom end. George's guess may be right, or mine, or maybe both are wrong and Jim's concept is something else. Only Jim can say. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
From: Henri Wilson on 22 Aug 2005 01:41 On 21 Aug 2005 20:04:33 -0700, "Jeff Root" <jeff5(a)freemars.org> wrote: >Henri Wilson replied to Jeff Root: > >>> George Dishman replied to Jim Greenfield: >>> >>>> The whole point of splitting the explanation into >>>> two stages was to try to help you grasp what is >>>> to me obvious, the forces are produced solely by >>>> the motors driving the shaft. Imagine instead the >>>> shaft was horizontal. You attach a motor at each >>>> end and drive them at different speeds and the >>>> same effect occurs. The energy 'appears' because >>>> you have to connect the motors to a source of >>>> power if they are to turn the shaft. >>> >>> Jim hasn't explained how the "clocks" are supposed to be >>> connected to the axle. If the axle itself is meant to keep >>> time like a clock (say, like the shaft which turns a clock's >>> second hand), then he is definitely talking about a single >>> clock. Yet he insisted that there were two clocks, one at >>> the bottom and one at the top. I suspect that he only meant >>> that there were pointers or "clock hands" at the bottom and >>> top of the axle, and that the only motor driving it is the >>> one at the bottom, but until he says what he has in mind, >>> we can only speculate. >>> >>>>> Well my belief is, that the axle will not get twisted >>>>> around and around just because 'time' is passing >>>>> (and the axle spinning) >>>> >>>> The fact is that it would. >>> >>> If you think the axle would become twisted, then I'm quite >>> sure that your understanding of the thought experiment setup >>> is different from his. With only one motor connected to the >>> axle, it would not become twisted. Although he has said >>> there are two clocks connected to the axle, he has said only >>> one motor is driving it. He needs to clarify that confused >>> description. >> >> Jim has every right to assume that most contributors to this >> NG have some kind of intelligence which enables them to >> occasionally apply their own deductive powers in cases when >> every minute detail is not spelled out as though for a 2yo >> kid.. > >Sure. But it still isn't clear what he meant by "two clocks", >or how those two clocks are connected to the axle. George >guessed that each of the two clocks has its own motor or other >mechanism to make it run, since that is what makes them clocks. >I, on the other hand, guess that Jim was talking about clock >hands at each end of the axle, being driven by the rotation >of the axle, which is, in turn, driven at its bottom end. > >George's guess may be right, or mine, or maybe both are wrong >and Jim's concept is something else. Only Jim can say. If you have been following my discussion with George Dishman, you would know what Jim and I mean. The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time duration reference. Its period doesn't need to be measured by any clocks. It can be assigned the value of ONE time unit. If each of its ends is connected to a rotating 'hand', the two hands must always be rotating at the same angular speed and will both remain in absolute synch. The shaft's period can be assigned the value ONE at both top and bottom. If a clock is sent from the bottom to the top and emits a different number of ticks per shaft rotation at each location, then the clock has obviously suffered some kind of physical change as a consequence of being moved. The shaft period certainly didn't change just because a clock was sent from one end to the other. > > -- Jeff, in Minneapolis HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 22 Aug 2005 04:40
Henri Wilson wrote: > The rotation of the shaft itself can be used as a fixed time duration > reference. > Its period doesn't need to be measured by any clocks. It can be assigned the > value of ONE time unit. If each of its ends is connected to a rotating 'hand', > the two hands must always be rotating at the same angular speed and will both > remain in absolute synch. > > The shaft's period can be assigned the value ONE at both top and bottom. > > If a clock is sent from the bottom to the top and emits a different number of > ticks per shaft rotation at each location, then the clock has obviously > suffered some kind of physical change as a consequence of being moved. The > shaft period certainly didn't change just because a clock was sent from one end > to the other. Why is that obvious, Henri? Why do you find it impossible that the shaft simply IS rotating at a different rotational frequency at different heights? It doesn't help that YOU call one rotation "one time unit", if the lengths of those "time units" are different when measured by local clocks, does it? The only kind of "time" of interest in physics is the "time" that have physical consequences, and determines the pace of local physical processes such as clocks. Paul |