"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| THE_ONE wrote:
| Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| And you are the magician who can make a train go in circle
| without applying any force to it? :-)
|
| Yes I am. I can also make photons travel around a fiber optic cable
| loop many times over ( many spiral loops stacked ) without applying any
| additional force as well.
|
| In that case I suggest you post your questions to alt.magic
|
| This is a physics group where neither massive bodies
| nor photons accelerate without a force.


You ranting stupid IDIOT, Tusselad.
You have no understanding of relative motion or "frame of reference"
whatsoever.

I don't know just how good a wizard The One is, but I do know you are
muggle.

Acceleration without a force:
http://tinyurl.com/jb9rx

Take your replies to alt.local.village.idiot, this is a physics newsgroup.

Androcles

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| wrote:
| Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| wrote:
| Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| THE_ONE wrote:
| It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
| within any inertial frame.
| Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
| A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
| is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.
|
| With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
| to your questions below yourself.
|
| Paul
| xxein: I beg your pardon. "A frame of reference fixed to train going
| in circle is not an _inertial_ frame of reference."
|
| Why not? Be careful of how you WISH to define an inertial frame of
| reference. Would you like to offer a list the qualifications for
this?
|
| If you don't know what an inertial frame of reference is, look it up.
|
| Paul
|
| xxein: Why don't you show me one and explain why it is inertial in
| light of simple motion that uses a planet that uses a solar system that
| uses a galaxy that uses a galactic cluster etc. All are non-inertial
| from your supposed description (that you haven't given).
|
| Do you have a retort?
|
| I get your drift.
|
| Can "a flat surface" be defined?

Yes, it is a plain plane. See Euclid.


| Is the water surface in your bathtub "a flat surface"?

No, it follows the curvature of the Earth.

| Does "a flat water surface" exist in nature?

Yes, between conjoined soap bubbles.


| Are there cases where you can consider the water surface
| of your bathtub to be "a flat surface"?

No.
Are there cases where you can consider the water surface between
conjouned bubbles is not a flat surface?

| Do you want a long quarrel over the previous question?
| I won't participate.

Good, you lose, **** off.

Androcles.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...

THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.

1) Therefore, if we had a Train on which there are two fiber optics
cables, each extending from end to end of the train, light passing from
end to end of the train through one on the two cables, will do so in a
given time period that is the same as the time period would be for
light to travel from end to end of the train through the other cable
but in the opposite direction.

2) Meanwhile, it is known that if this train was to be on a circular
path, then the time period for the light to complete the path from end
to end of the train in one direction, would not be the same as the time
period would be for the light to travel in the opposite direction
through the other fiber optics cable. This has been proven to be true
by using the SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER.

Now for the question.

If the train track is as follows .......O... , meaning it a straight
track for some time, and then it becomes a loop, and then it returns to
being a straight track once again, then how is it that light can one
minute go from end to end of the train in either direction in the same
time period, then suddenly it can no longer do this when on the loop,
then somehow the light magically is able to travel from end to end of
the train in either direction in the same time period once again ?

SEE http://www.outersecrets.com/real/5_4d_3.htm for pic of train
experiment.

THE_ONE

Hmmm... ??? Trains inside a fibre optic. Verrrry
inthresting. 8-)

Facetious reply from a moron that cannot spell... very borthring.
Androcles.

kenseto a écrit :
wrote in message
oups.com...

YBM wrote:

kenseto a écrit :

But the earth's surface is not an inertial frame so how come that we
measure the transit time to be the same in both directions?

The answer: Absolute motion of the fiber optic cables are in the
vertical direction.

Sometimes I wonder if you're not a joke...


xxein: I'd like to hear that explanation also, but there is something
to it that Ken could never realize. Why vertical??? Beacuse that
takes away transverse motion? He still has no basis for subplanting
the one wayness of gravity.


Ken:
Absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the local light rays. If
there is no absolute motion in the direction of the local light rays then
there is no frequency shift. On earth a detector can detect frequency shift
(detecting absolute motion) in the vertical direction wrt a local light ray
moving in the vertical direction. This interpretation is supported by the
Pound and Rebka experiments.

It was (perhaps) funny the first time. A joke shouldn't be repeated
again and again.

Sorcerer a écrit :
Acceleration without a force:
http://tinyurl.com/jb9rx

A apparent movement on a screen is not a physical movement, you
are just using Wilson's logic again.

So you can rotate a bunch of pixels on a screen without a force,
but what about a real object rotating without force ?

THE_ONE wrote:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.Paul B. Andersen wrote:
THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.
Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.
With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
to your questions below yourself.
Paul


So far we have responses that state obvious forms of reaction, in
combination with absence of thorough thought.

It usually comes down to explanations that state that this happens
because of that, and that happens because of the other. But always,
always, and always, the " THAT " and the " OTHER " are never fully
explained, but have simply been accepteD by the majority as correct,
and once this is done, that which is " Accepted " is then regarded as "
FACT ". Therefore, to these minds, there is ABOSOLUTELY no difference
between a FACT, and an ACCEPTANCE.


For instance, going in circles is regarded as not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, because of it being a case of constant
acceleration, a magical form of constant acceleration that requires no
force.


Force is most certainly required to maintain uniform circular motion.
Constant acceleration implies constant force.



If an object in space is given a spin, it will continue to spin and
spin and spin, indefinitely. According to it not being an _inertial_
frame of reference, it is also continuously accelerating despite the
fact that no force is being continuously applied to it.


You are neglecting the internal forces which allow the object to be
classified as a "rigid body". If it were not for the (very strong)
forces holding the molecules of your object together, it would fly
apart rather than continuing its spin.



If an understanding is FLAWED or INCOMPLETE, it will not allow complete
understanding to be revealed. But to this day there are many people
who insist that understanding is never to be achieved, but instead we
must simply regard certain functions of reality as mysterious and
inexplicable, as the result of their " ACCEPTED FACTS " saying so. This
then provides protection of the FLAWED theories, which then will
continue to produce ground for the practice useless circular arguments
which lead us nowhere. And so, NOWHERE is NOW HERE. Will it
ever leave us !


In the eye of many, in this case we have a case of inertial frame, then
NON-inertial frame, then inertial frame once again. It is three blocks
of understanding set side by side, and never assembled to the point of
one complete undertsanding. So far all we have to explain the train
thought experiment is 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 .


Also, if the train is constantly accelerating, then so are the Photons,
therefore the two cancel out.


Can any of you out there, see the complete picture ?


You left a few parts out. How are the clocks at the ends of the train
synchronized?
Otherwise, how can we compare the light travel time?

I appreciate the excellent gedankenexperiment - shevek

"shevek" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Force is most certainly required to maintain uniform circular motion.
| Constant acceleration implies constant force.

This bottle is in uniform circular motion relative to Mickey:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ickeyLarge.gif

Where is the force acting on it? Or do you claim a universal frame?

Androcles

Paul B. Andersen wrote:
wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
THE_ONE wrote:
It is said that the speed of light in both directions is the same
within any inertial frame.
Exactly. In any _inertial_ frame.
A frame of reference fixed to train going in circle
is not an _inertial_ frame of reference.

With this in mind you should be able to figure out the answers
to your questions below yourself.

Paul
xxein: I beg your pardon. "A frame of reference fixed to train going
in circle is not an _inertial_ frame of reference."

Why not? Be careful of how you WISH to define an inertial frame of
reference. Would you like to offer a list the qualifications for this?

If you don't know what an inertial frame of reference is, look it up.

Paul

xxein: Why don't you show me one and explain why it is inertial in
light of simple motion that uses a planet that uses a solar system that
uses a galaxy that uses a galactic cluster etc. All are non-inertial
from your supposed description (that you haven't given).

Do you have a retort?

I get your drift.

Can "a flat surface" be defined?
Is the water surface in your bathtub "a flat surface"?
Does "a flat water surface" exist in nature?
Are there cases where you can consider the water surface
of your bathtub to be "a flat surface"?
Do you want a long quarrel over the previous question?
I won't participate.

Paul

xxein: More than that, but that's OK. You got the "drift".

YBM wrote:
Sorcerer a écrit :
Acceleration without a force:
http://tinyurl.com/jb9rx

A apparent movement on a screen is not a physical movement, you
are just using Wilson's logic again.

So you can rotate a bunch of pixels on a screen without a force,
but what about a real object rotating without force ?

And the acceleration in the Train experiment, refers to Angular
acceleration , and Centripetal acceleration, which have nothing to do
with the Velocity of the object that follows the circular path itself.

The objects consistant Velocity( v ) is measured by 2*PI*R / T
where T = Time Period, and R = raduis.

YBM wrote:
Sorcerer a écrit :
Acceleration without a force:
http://tinyurl.com/jb9rx

A apparent movement on a screen is not a physical movement, you
are just using Wilson's logic again.


So you can rotate a bunch of pixels on a screen without a force,
but what about a real object rotating without force ?


Would the Earth do as an example?
What is the Force that is constantly being applied to the Earth to
maintain its constant acceleration ?

If the Earth was rotating even faster, what is the new Force that is
constantly being applied to the Earth to maintain its new constant
acceleration ?

In the Train experiment, acceleration refers to Angular acceleration ,
and Centripetal acceleration, which have nothing to do with the
Velocity of the object that follows the circular path itself.

The objects consistant Velocity( v ) is measured by 2*PI*R / T ,
where T = Time Period, and R = raduis.