Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Two watches are next to each other and synchronized. At exactly 12:00 AM they accelerate directly away from each other at the same rate for exactly 1 second, and then "decelerate" at the same rate for an additional 1 second. They now have a distance of 186,000 miles between them and both clocks observe the time as 2 seconds after 12:00 AM. One watch fires a laser light at the other. The laser light travels at 186,000 miles per second and reaches the other watch in 1 second, at 3 seconds after 12:00 AM. The watch fires an additional laser beam at exactly 3 seconds after 12:00 AM, but this time it fires it's "special laser" that travels at 372,000 miles per second. It takes .5 seconds to reach the other watch and impacts the other watch 3.5 seconds after 12:00 AM. Let the discussion begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 If you break the laws of physics you can do whatever you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 If you break the laws of physics you can do whatever you like. Which law(s) did I break? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 The whole light going faster than c thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 The whole light going faster than c thing. So you agree with the time it takes for a "regular" laser to impact the other watch (1 second)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 the clocks are probably massive and travel at c as well.... So that's two laws we've told you that you've broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 the clocks are probably massive and travel at c as well.... So that's two laws we've told you that you've broken. So changing the starting and finish lines after a race has begun changes the distance and time an object travels? ie, Two cars are 100 miles apart from each other at 12:00 AM and they are traveling directly towards each other. They are each traveling 100 MPH towards each other. How long to impact? How far do they each travel to impact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 So changing the starting and finish lines after a race has begun changes the distance and time an object travels? ie, Two cars are 100 miles apart from each other at 12:00 AM and they are traveling directly towards each other. They are each traveling 100 MPH towards each other. How long to impact? How far do they each travel to impact? When you are discussing relativistic speeds you can't use Galilean transforms as you are doing here. Velocities do not add like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 When you are discussing relativistic speeds you can't use Galilean transforms as you are doing here. Velocities do not add like that. My point is that if light travels at 186,000 miles per second, it takes one second for light to travel 186,000 miles. The time and distance are a record of the past. ALL measurements are taken AFTER the event has occurred, not before the event, and not during the event. ALL observers must agree on the tape measure and stop watch, as it is a record of the PAST! You can not observe 10 seconds of motion until AFTER the 10 seconds has elapsed, and then there is no dispute of what just happened, because the tape measure and stop watch were applied to the motion, and the results are analyzed after the event, not during. Illusions are just that, ILLUSIONS, they are not real! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 but tape measures and clocks show different values depending on your frame... but yes you measure things after the event using photons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 but tape measures and clocks show different values depending on your frame... but yes you measure things after the event using photons... Negative. Tape measures and stop watches are 1 standard that we created for distance and duration. There isn't two different standards for distance and duration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Negative. Tape measures and clocks are 1 standard that we created for distance and duration. There isn't two different standards for distance and duration. SR shows us that there are differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 My point is that if light travels at 186,000 miles per second, it takes one second for light to travel 186,000 miles. The time and distance are a record of the past. ALL measurements are taken AFTER the event has occurred, not before the event, and not during the event. ALL observers must agree on the tape measure and stop watch, as it is a record of the PAST! You can not observe 10 seconds of motion until AFTER the 10 seconds has elapsed, and then there is no dispute of what just happened, because the tape measure and stop watch were applied to the motion, and the results are analyzed after the event, not during. Illusions are just that, ILLUSIONS, they are not real! That makes a lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 SR shows us that there are differences. And that is my point with all these threads, that SR is all about illusions. My examples are of mass, distance, and time, as measured by the tape measure and stop watch. I have a shaft that rotates at a constant velocity. It never changes its rotational velocity. It neither increases or decreases rotational velocity. Since my rotating shaft is always at a constant velocity, I made a standard. Exactly 300 complete revolutions of the shaft is equal to 1 second. ALL motion is measured against my shaft as a exact determination of the duration of an event, anywhere in the Universe. There is no two different observers as far as time and distance go , there is one. My constant velocity shaft never lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 And that is my point with all these threads, that SR is all about illusions. My examples are of mass, distance, and time, as measured by the tape measure and stop watch. SR matches what we observe experimentally perfectly. I have a shaft that rotates at a constant velocity. It never changes its rotational velocity. It neither increases or decreases rotational velocity. Interestingly if you've got a big enough shaft you should be able to create a relativistic effect between the centre and outisde, you must remember the shaft is made of atoms that interact via photons. Since my rotating shaft is always at a constant velocity, I made a standard. Exactly 300 complete revolutions of the shaft is equal to 1 second. It's not really a standard as it's a composite thing. ALL motion is measured against my shaft as a exact determination of the duration of an event, anywhere in the Universe. There is no two different observers as far as time and distance go , there is one. My constant velocity shaft never lies. If you make two identical shafts and compare them in different reference frames (one is moving compared to the other and vis versa) they will not agree with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 SR matches what we observe experimentally perfectly. So you won't have a problem with my Rocket Ship thread? Interestingly if you've got a big enough shaft you should be able to create a relativistic effect between the centre and outisde, you must remember the shaft is made of atoms that interact via photons. The center? What center? I can continue to divide the distance in half between two points and never actually reach the center, regardless of the velocity of my travel or the time traveled. If you define a point, it has to have a diameter, and that diameter can always be halved, infinitely. It's not really a standard as it's a composite thing. It's a standard of time (duration). It's a way to measure the duration of an event. If you make two identical shafts and compare them in different reference frames (one is moving compared to the other and vis versa) they will not agree with each other. Yes they will, because they are both rotating the exact same rotational velocity. If the other shaft is not rotating the same rotational velocity, it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 points, by definition, are zero dimensional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 points, by definition, are zero dimensional. So you can define a point that doesn't have a diameter? Exactly what are you talking about, anyway, when you define a point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 So you won't have a problem with my Rocket Ship thread? Not really read it closely enough, but I know it's got accelerations that probably require a GR analysis. The center? What center? I can continue to divide the distance in half between two points and never actually reach the center, regardless of the velocity of my travel or the time traveled. If you define a point, it has to have a diameter, and that diameter can always be halved, infinitely. Around it's rotational axis. It's a standard of time (duration). It's a way to measure the duration of an event. But it's not because there is a difference between teh atoms spinning on the outside and those on the inside, classically it's indistinguishable, but there IS a difference the photons take time to travel from atom to atom to 'tell' the others that they've moved. Yes they will, because they are both rotating the exact same rotational velocity. If the other shaft is not rotating the same rotational velocity, it's wrong. No they wont, and we've got experiments that show that extremely accurate clocks show difference in different reference frames, if you disagree with this you WILL need experimental evidence and be able to mathematically explain the current experiments (and there are ALOT of them) if you're to be taken seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 No they wont, and we've got experiments that show that extremely accurate clocks show difference in different reference frames, if you disagree with this you WILL need experimental evidence and be able to mathematically explain the current experiments (and there are ALOT of them) if you're to be taken seriously. Yes they will , because a rotation doesn't have a diameter, it is 360 degrees of rotation, not a distance traveled per duration. That's what torque (force times distance) is all about. Torque doesn't lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 Yes they will , because a rotation doesn't have a diameter, it is 360 degrees of rotation, not a distance traveled per duration. That's what torque (force times distance) is all about. Torque doesn't lie. So what's rotating if rotation doesn't have a distance? The two WILL disagree. Stating otherwise is just well a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 So what's rotating if rotation doesn't have a distance? The two WILL disagree. Stating otherwise is just well a lie. I (we humans) already created a standard of measure for duration, it's called a second. A second is a specific duration, and if one's watch ticks one second (or one's shaft rotates 300 revolutions), and the duration of a second has not past, or already past+, then that is not a second. A second is a specific duration. One stop watch for the Universe, not two. I can take my shaft anywhere in the Universe and measure duration, regardless of the event's mass, distance, and time. Do you disagree with the fact that one complete rotation of a 24" diameter tire will travel 24"*3.1416=75.3984" in one complete rotation? Do you deny that if the tire is rotating 100 RPM the tire will travel 7,539.84" per minute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 I (we humans) already created a standard of measure for duration, it's called a second. A second is a specific duration, and if one's watch ticks one second (or one's shaft rotates 300 revolutions), and the duration of a second has not past, or already past+, then that is not a second. A second is a specific duration. One stop watch for the Universe, not two. I can take my shaft anywhere in the Universe and measure duration, regardless of the event's mass, distance, and time. Do you disagree with the fact that one complete rotation of a 24" diameter tire will travel 24"*3.1416=75.3984" in one complete rotation? Do you deny that if the tire is rotating 100 RPM the tire will travel 7,539.84" per minute? It depends on your reference frame, if you have two tyres set them both rotating together and then accelerate one of them to a constant velocity that is close to the speed of light 0.75c say then compare the two VERY accurately they will not be rotating at the same rate. So I do disagree and state it depends on your reference frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor Daddy Posted June 18, 2008 Author Share Posted June 18, 2008 It depends on your reference frame, if you have two tyres set them both rotating together and then accelerate one of them to a constant velocity that is close to the speed of light 0.75c say then compare the two VERY accurately they will not be rotating at the same rate. So I do disagree and state it depends on your reference frame. In order to accelerate the tire you must have applied a torque for a duration. The RPM of the tire will increase, and the distance traveled per time interval will increase, so both tires will not be rotating at 100 RPM any longer. Refer to my Torque, RPM, and HP thread for a full disclosure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 18, 2008 Share Posted June 18, 2008 the clocks are probably massive and travel at c as well.... If they're separated by 186,000 miles after 1 second, they moved at ~ c/2 in the lab frame. That shouldn't be a problem. I (we humans) already created a standard of measure for duration, it's called a second. A second is a specific duration, and if one's watch ticks one second (or one's shaft rotates 300 revolutions), and the duration of a second has not past, or already past+, then that is not a second. We define the duration of the second, but the behavior of time is a property of the universe, and we don't get to define that. Time is relative to the frame of reference you are in when you measure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts