"OG" wrote in message
...
| 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.
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?

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| Well, my world is the empirically measured real world,
| so how silly can that be. Wait, don't answer that...

LOL
emprically measured real world?
a distance = a speed.
LOL


| Light speed is conveniently constant in all frames.

It is not.
it is relative in relative frames.
Or is relativity wrong about relative motion?

| How? The standard meter as produced by the definition
| is as constant in length (if not more so) as any
| artefact you could produce.

It is not, if it were, you would not need transformations
for higher speeds.


| The old standard meter stick suffered from the fact that
| there was only one, it could not be transported without
| risk of damage, was subject to wear, temperature and
| pressure changes, and was just bloody inconvenient.

Yup.
but the
a distance = a speed
is even worse.

| You're stuck in 15th century physics. Who's worse off?

No,
you are stuck with a rubber ruler that contracts near lightspeed
and expands when it slows down...
and you don't even know it.
A rubber ruler is what you are worshipping..
LOL

Greg Neill wrote:

[snip]

Is it not yet obvious to you that space**** is neither willing nor
capable of learning relativity?

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| If all measurements are taken in the rest frame
| of the lines, then yes, of course.

The observer at the "rest frame" is telling
the in flight guy that he is physically passing 93000
lines in 1 second.
Why doesn't the in flight guy believe him?
What makes the guy in flights measurement
a physical measurement at all?

"Spaceman" wrote in message
. ..

"OG" wrote in message
...
| 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.

"OG" wrote in message
...
| 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.

That is the sort of thinking that is holding you back, no I.
I am not assuming anything, it is you that assumes a transformation
is needed simply because you were brainwashed into thinking so.
..

| 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.

Completely wrong bologna.
The radius can not "change" at all since it is not moving in the direction
of rotation.

Try to think about my can rolling on a train thread.
If you try hard enough, you can break the brainwashing you had
to accept to pass in school for such classes.


|
| 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.

More mumbo jumbo based upon a brainwashed idea.
If you are interested in advancing physics, I suggest you stop reading such
crap and actually think for yourself.

"Spaceman" wrote in message ...

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| If all measurements are taken in the rest frame
| of the lines, then yes, of course.

The observer at the "rest frame" is telling
the in flight guy that he is physically passing 93000
lines in 1 second.

Which would confirm what the in-flight guy would
deduce using the appropriate transofroms on his own
measured data what the rest frame guy would see in
his frame.

Why doesn't the in flight guy believe him?

He does, because he knows relativity and how to
properly convert measurements taken in one frame
to the perspective of another.

What makes the guy in flights measurement
a physical measurement at all?

Because it is performed using physical instruments
just the way it would be on a body at rest in his
frame. There are any number of ways to contrive
a situation where the measurement methods are
essentially identical.

"Spaceman" wrote in message ...

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
. ..
| Well, my world is the empirically measured real world,
| so how silly can that be. Wait, don't answer that...

LOL
emprically measured real world?
a distance = a speed.
LOL


| Light speed is conveniently constant in all frames.

It is not.

Prove it empirically. Cite any experimental evidence.
If you can't, you're just expressing an opinion. Your
opinions have been less than reliable.

it is relative in relative frames.
Or is relativity wrong about relative motion?

Huh?


| How? The standard meter as produced by the definition
| is as constant in length (if not more so) as any
| artefact you could produce.

It is not, if it were, you would not need transformations
for higher speeds.

That's a non-sequitur, since length dilation is independent
of the unit of measure.



| The old standard meter stick suffered from the fact that
| there was only one, it could not be transported without
| risk of damage, was subject to wear, temperature and
| pressure changes, and was just bloody inconvenient.

Yup.
but the
a distance = a speed
is even worse.

It is not distance = a speed. Get your units straight
or you look like an complete idiot.

The definition of the second and the meter are the most
convenient, non perishable, robust standards we have.


| You're stuck in 15th century physics. Who's worse off?

No,
you are stuck with a rubber ruler that contracts near lightspeed
and expands when it slows down...
and you don't even know it.
A rubber ruler is what you are worshipping..

Conversing with you is like conversing with a pavlovian-
trained victim of Tourette's syndrome. Quite humorous,
really.

"Eric Gisse" wrote in message
oups.com...

Greg Neill wrote:

[snip]

Is it not yet obvious to you that space**** is neither willing nor
capable of learning relativity?


Of course it is. He's trolling for reactions; he is apparently
addicted to negative attention, a type of masochistic psychosis.

Apparently not intelligent enough to understand physics at a
level that would allow him to participate in discussions at the
level of the others, he plays the antagonist instead to attract
the attention he craves.

That being said, it can be amusing to bait him into
his characteristic outbursts; Every court needs a fool,
every village an idiot.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
news | "Spaceman" wrote in message
...
|
| "Greg Neill" wrote in message
| . ..
| | If all measurements are taken in the rest frame
| | of the lines, then yes, of course.
|
| The observer at the "rest frame" is telling
| the in flight guy that he is physically passing 93000
| lines in 1 second.
|
| Which would confirm what the in-flight guy would
| deduce using the appropriate transofroms on his own
| measured data what the rest frame guy would see in
| his frame.

LOL
what a bunch of crock.
snipped crock of bologna

So Greg,
How does the radius of a big wheel with a 1 mile
cicumference rolling along those lines at 93,000
lines per second change itself to allow the supposed
contraction of the circumference?