mooeypoo Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Too bad. I know, I wish they did too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Showing a desire to learn. I like this. We have three space ships. Space ship one contains a rotating thing. Space ship two is travelling at velocity A relative to space ship one and contains a perfect stop watch, and measures the RPM of the rotating thing to be 10RPM. Space ship three is travelling at velocity B relative to space ship one and contains an identical perfect stop watch, this ship measures the RPM to be 12RPM. Both measurements are correct. The physics behind this has been experimentally proven billions of times a day. You just reading this post the physics has been tested once per large network node, so probably around 5 times as I'm in the UK and the server is not, per bit of information each character is at least 8 bits, for just this post that around 40000 times. I said a simple example of torque, Klaynos. Where do you talk about torque in that post? You only talk RPM. Torque is force*distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Do I get a certificate for that? Oh, baby, you already have sweetiepie. TXZMZ-XvvzI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Oh, baby, you already have sweetiepie. TXZMZ-XvvzI Thanks, that was hysterical. :D:D:D:D:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Thanks, that was hysterical. :D:D:D:D:D 7TgNCoVmziQ This one's even better. Learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I said a simple example of torque, Klaynos. Where do you talk about torque in that post? You only talk RPM. Torque is force*distance. OK, well if we measure the force, which we can find from the angular acceleration (from the angular frequency), and the length of the rotating thing both the space ships will measure different values for the length and the force and a different Torque value. None of them are lorentz invariants. I would strongly recommend you go find a first year undergraduate physics text and read it, then learn alot of maths and read it again. Else you simply don't have the tools at your disposal to understand what is going on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 None of them are lorentz invariants. Klaynos, Lorentz Invariats have anything to do with Lorentz Gauge? Isn't that related to relativity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 OK, well if we measure the force, which we can find from the angular acceleration (from the angular frequency), and the length of the rotating thing both the space ships will measure different values for the length and the force and a different Torque value. None of them are lorentz invariants. I would strongly recommend you go find a first year undergraduate physics text and read it, then learn alot of maths and read it again. Else you simply don't have the tools at your disposal to understand what is going on here. The torque is at the axis, which has no dimension. ...and before you start looking into it further, let me save you some time. if f=ma, if a=0, f=0. ...and yes, when you are cruising at a steady MPH in your car, not accelerating, (not increasing or decreasing MPH) the engine is doing work, maintaining the constant RPM, not accelerating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Klaynos, Lorentz Invariats have anything to do with Lorentz Gauge? Isn't that related to relativity? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Yep. I beg your uberphysics pardon, then, my dear, but I am studying this now (I have an exam actually next week) and though I am an undergrad, I am not first year. Take it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The torque is at the axis, which has no dimension. You clearly stated that Torque = Force x Distance = dp/dt x distance.... There is clearly momentum, time and distance in there. None of which are Lorentz invariants. They will ALL be measured differently by the different space ships and result in a different Torque being measured. Shockingly difficult to get your head around and counter intuitive I know. But it's what happens, makes life REALLY annoying.... but the universe doesn't have to act how we think it should.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 When the Earth was formed it was 4.5 kilometers closer to the Sun than it is today. Or to put it another way, at constant rate it would have taken the Earth 150 TRILLION YEARS to get to its present orbit from the core of the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 You clearly stated that Torque = Force x Distance = dp/dt x distance.... There is clearly momentum, time and distance in there. None of which are Lorentz invariants. They will ALL be measured differently by the different space ships and result in a different Torque being measured. Shockingly difficult to get your head around and counter intuitive I know. But it's what happens, makes life REALLY annoying.... but the universe doesn't have to act how we think it should.... The distance is the radius from the axis, not the distance traveled. You can apply 100 lb-ft of torque and no work is done, or you can apply 100 lb-ft of torque doing work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The distance is the radius from the axis, not the distance traveled. That is the distance I was talking about.... It is measured to be a different length by a perfectly accurate measuring device by each of the space ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Or to put it another way, at constant rate it would have taken the Earth 150 TRILLION YEARS to get to its present orbit from the core of the sun.Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 That is the distance I was talking about.... It is measured to be a different length by a perfectly accurate measuring device by each of the space ships. The distance is a rod, there is no motion. Take a totter for example. Two people sitting on the totter, both equally off the ground, both the same distance from the fulcrum, and both the same mass, totally balanced, because the net force is zero. There is no motion. The torque is equal to the force times the distance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The torque is either the result of the rotation of the "rotating thing", or its cause. In either case the rate of rotation is proportional to the torque applied (or vice versa). Therefore the measurements taken by the other two spaceships should read identically because they are measuring the same thing. Yet they do not. Your misuse of simple formulae doesn't solve the problem. Guess what does? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe distance is a rod, there is no motion.Take a totter for example. Two people sitting on the totter, both equally off the ground, bot the same distance from the fulcrum, and both the same mass, totally balanced, because the net force is zero. there is no motion. How is that supposed to apply to anything we have been discussing? What are you trying to demonstrate with that comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 The torque is either the result of the rotation of the "rotating thing", or its cause. In either case the rate of rotation is proportional to the torque applied (or vice versa). Therefore the measurements taken by the other two spaceships should read identically because they are measuring the same thing. Yet they do not. Your misuse of simple formulae doesn't solve the problem. Guess what does? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged How is that supposed to apply to anything we have been discussing? What are you trying to demonstrate with that comment? I'm demonstrating that there is force*distance, on both sides, but not a zero net force between them, so there is no RPM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 The distance is a rod, there is no motion. Take a totter for example. Two people sitting on the totter, both equally off the ground, both the same distance from the fulcrum, and both the same mass, totally balanced, because the net force is zero. There is no motion. The torque is equal to the force times the distance! The distance between the centre and the two people would be measured differently by the two other space ships. This is a result of the laws of physics being the same everywhere in the universe in inertial rest frames.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 The distance between the centre and the two people would be measured differently by the two other space ships. This is a result of the laws of physics being the same everywhere in the universe in inertial rest frames.... That's their problem, it doesn't change the torque! As I said, Einsteins world is illusions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 That's their problem, it doesn't change the torque! As I said, Einsteins world is illusions! Hush, go read. 5m138-Fn5Tw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 As I said, Einsteins world is illusions! I'm sorry to tell you that this misconception that you have is just that, a misconception. There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence for relativity, the fact that the internet works globally is such evidence without accurate atomic clocks that have SR and GR corrections fast long distance communication would not be possible. So unless you think there is a massive conspiracy then the only possibility is that relativity works. If you can't see that, then science certainly isn't the place for you, maybe writing poor childrens books about kittens would be more suited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 I'm sorry to tell you that this misconception that you have is just that, a misconception. There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence for relativity, the fact that the internet works globally is such evidence without accurate atomic clocks that have SR and GR corrections fast long distance communication would not be possible. So unless you think there is a massive conspiracy then the only possibility is that relativity works. If you can't see that, then science certainly isn't the place for you, maybe writing poor childrens books about kittens would be more suited. I'm not saying it isn't practical, I'm saying it is inaccurate, and is causing science to go the wrong way! They need to follow my idea, as it is in compliance with the 2nd law, isn't it Swansont? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Deja vu. Why do you bother, Klaynos? He'll just ignore your answer as if that makes it wrong then claim you don't have any answers. It all happened before and it will happen again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI'm not saying it isn't practical, I'm saying it is inaccurate, and is causing science to go the wrong way! They need to follow my idea, as it is in compliance with the 2nd law, isn't it Swansont? Stop abusing members' names. Swansont *disagreed* with you, as any person with their right minds would, specifically one who actually *knows* his physics. This is really pathetic, Duration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duration Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Deja vu. Why do you bother, Klaynos? He'll just ignore your answer as if that makes it wrong then claim you don't have any answers. It all happened before and it will happen again. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Stop abusing members' names. Swansont *disagreed* with you, as any person with their right minds would, specifically one who actually *knows* his physics. This is really pathetic, Duration. Swansont said it appeals to the 2nd law. They're coming to take me away ha ha! Should I get the quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts