The TARDIS from the Doctor Who television series is known for being
larger on the inside that it is on the outside. Indeed TARDIS is an
acronym for "Time And Relative Dimension(s) In Space".

The TARDIS could be dismissed as simply an imaginative creation of
science fiction, however, the idea of something being larger with
respect to one reference frame than with respect to another does have
real physical meaning.

Consider the old example of the rotating disk, the circumference has a
certain length L with respect to a non-rotating inertial frame, but
with respect to a reference frame fixed to the rotating disk, the
circumference measure L' is greater than L.

If one was lining up ball bearings next to each other along the
complete circumference of the disk, more ball bearings would be
required to "cover" the rotating disk circumference than the
circumference of the stationary disk. Hence the rotating disk is
"bigger" than the stationary one.

The point of this posting is merely to point out that the idea of the
TARDIS being larger inside than outside was quite clever and wasn't far
fetched at all.

wrote in message
oups.com...
| The TARDIS from the Doctor Who television series is known for being
| larger on the inside that it is on the outside. Indeed TARDIS is an
| acronym for "Time And Relative Dimension(s) In Space".
|
| The TARDIS could be dismissed as simply an imaginative creation of
| science fiction, however, the idea of something being larger with
| respect to one reference frame than with respect to another does have
| real physical meaning.
|
| Consider the old example of the rotating disk, the circumference has a
| certain length L with respect to a non-rotating inertial frame, but
| with respect to a reference frame fixed to the rotating disk, the
| circumference measure L' is greater than L.
|
| If one was lining up ball bearings next to each other along the
| complete circumference of the disk, more ball bearings would be
| required to "cover" the rotating disk circumference than the
| circumference of the stationary disk. Hence the rotating disk is
| "bigger" than the stationary one.
|
| The point of this posting is merely to point out that the idea of the
| TARDIS being larger inside than outside was quite clever and wasn't far
| fetched at all.

It is far fetched.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ket/Rocket.htm
Androcles

Sorcerer wrote:

It is far fetched.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ket/Rocket.htm
Androcles

I am not sure I want to trust a webpage that calls Einstein an idiot.

The webpage also only considers the Lorentz transformation between
inertial frames that are moving uniformly with respect to each other.

Einstein gave the example of the rotating disk to show that the
geometry in an accelerated frame, or a frame within a gravitational
field, is non-euclidean.

Specifically, that for the rotating disk C/D pi.

An observer in a non-inertial reference frames may see more "space" in
certain bounded regions than an observer in an inertial frame would,
and this "extra space" is physically real.

wrote in message
ups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| It is far fetched.
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...ket/Rocket.htm
| Androcles
|
| I am not sure I want to trust a webpage that calls Einstein an idiot.

Too bad, the guy was a ******.
If you don't want to discuss it, **** off, go play Dr. Who somewhere
else, child.
Androcles

Dear e_erpelding:

wrote in message
oups.com...
....
The point of this posting is merely to point out that
the idea of the TARDIS being larger inside than
outside was quite clever and wasn't far fetched at
all.

The "bottomless bag" is a pretty old concept. Wizards,
sorcerers, and magicians (the more powerful ones) were supposed
to have them. Mary Poppins showed one off in the movie of the
same name.

A few years ago, there was some discussion here of warp bubbles,
allowing one to travel FTL. I don't believe the external volume
assigned to the bubble would be necessarily equal to the internal
volume assigned...

David A. Smith

You are the one that does not want to discuss the issue, by only giving
a link to a web page and then starting (somewhat early I might say)
with the insults.

The question is, Are there certain non-inertial reference frames such
that a bounded region of space is physically larger than as seen from
an inertial (at rest) frame.

But perhaps you do not understand the rotating disk from a relativistic
standpoint?

It is am important example in relativity theory, Landau and Lif****z
even start their chapter on gravitation in their book, The Classical
Theory of Fields, using it as a basic example of a non-inertial
reference system.

This group, sci.physics.relativity, is the appropriate place to discuss
the subject.

Alcubierre's paper made is somewhat respectable to consider the idea of
"Star Trek's" warp drive.

However, I do not know if anyone has shown that Alcubierre's "metrics"
could be realized in a physical way, I believe something called "exotic
matter" was required to generate them.

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

A few years ago, there was some discussion here of warp bubbles,
allowing one to travel FTL. I don't believe the external volume
assigned to the bubble would be necessarily equal to the internal
volume assigned...

David A. Smith

wrote in message
oups.com...
| You are the one that does not want to discuss the issue, by only giving
| a link to a web page and then starting (somewhat early I might say)
| with the insults.

The issue is that you attempted to use a crackpot childish theory
to claim the fiction of your Dr.Who machine had a basis in
reality, and it doesn't.



|
| The question is, Are there certain non-inertial reference frames such
| that a bounded region of space is physically larger than as seen from
| an inertial (at rest) frame.

NO, there are NOT.

|
| But perhaps you do not understand the rotating disk from a relativistic
| standpoint?

I understand Einstein's relativity, it is a fiction like your time machine.
You do NOT understand that the cuckoo transformations CANNOT
be derived mathematically. You are ****ed off because I call Einstein
a ****head, but refuse to discuss the mathematics because
a) you do not understand mathematics,
b) you are childish.


| It is am important example in relativity theory, Landau and Lif****z
| even start their chapter on gravitation in their book, The Classical
| Theory of Fields, using it as a basic example of a non-inertial
| reference system.
|

Non sequitur, I've shown that the cuckoo transformations
are fiction, I don't give a **** what Landau and Lif****z
have to say.

| This group, sci.physics.relativity, is the appropriate place to discuss
| the subject.

Yes, but you refused to examine my page because of your prejudice,
and I'm not swallowing your childish **** about a Tardis.

Androcles

Sorcerer wrote:

Yes, but you refused to examine my page because of your prejudice,
Androcles

Oh, I did not know that webpage was yours.

I went to your index page and saw some other interesting topics listed,
but some of the links do not work.

Not wanting to be accused of being prejudiced, I will examine what you
have written carefully.

"e_erpelding" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
|
| Yes, but you refused to examine my page because of your prejudice,
| Androcles
|
| Oh, I did not know that webpage was yours.
|
| I went to your index page and saw some other interesting topics listed,
| but some of the links do not work.

Correct: "This blog will be updated later" but I didn't say when later
would be.

| Not wanting to be accused of being prejudiced, I will examine what you
| have written carefully.

Thank you.