I mean - how everything on the (ecliptic) is seen, when some hypothetical nonEuclidity strikes, after the circular train has reached 99% of the speed of light?
What happens with the image of the stars? Nothing, I suppose. Nothing, as with the train. Nothing, as with a single car.
> If you expect contraction of the radius, it simply means you don't understand SR.
I don't! Nor the contraction of the perimeter.
You expect what?
> how are you accounting for the fact that at different points along the track, train cars or satellites are moving in *opposite directions*
If I am in the center - the simplest case - the contraction suppose to be the same everywhere. No essential difference, if I am not at the center. Some contraction everywhere. At least SR claims that.
>general relativity has to be considered because of the constant and extremely high acceleration in this example
Much less than in the case of the Geneva accelerator. But if we move out to the Galaxy dimensions - there is almost no acceleration.
> I'd have to do the math to figure out exactly what would and wouldn't be observable in this case
Indeed! You'd had to!
> In general, I would expect observable effects, but certainly not to the same degree as the non circular case
How do you know, that you are not observing a circular case, watching ONE car?
> contraction in this case would be observable, because the motion is in a constant direction and thus the SR effect is not affected by continuous changes in direction
It is ALWAYS some acceleration involved. The gravitation of a distant star - whatever. Do you suggest, that SR never holds?
> The problem is that to see obvious dilation effects that don't require very sensitive equipment (like atomic clocks) to measure, you need objects travelling close to light speed, which is rather difficult to arrange. Nevertheless, verification of the theory has been successfully performed in all sorts of ways.
If I seat by the equator, and the train passes by me, I can always measure the length of the wagon, by the time it took to go by.
The problem arises, when all the wagons (let say 360 of them) are so contracted, that they _all together_ need only 1/100 of second to pass - instead 1/7.5!
Nor me, nor the lions don't see any weird geometry around us - which had to save the SR.
> I think your earlier confusion was that if the train cars shrink as seen by an outside oberver, how does the train stay attached? The best answer that can be given in a few minutes on slashdot is that the General Relativity effects balance it out somehow
I am still confused.
> the General Relativity effects balance it out somehow
The force inside the rigid ring could be arbitrary small. The question of the radius. If it is large enough - several light years - the force is quite small.
Slashdot Mirror
You are the perfect example of an average slashdotonian fool.
Mostly morons here.
- Thomas
Or vice versa. The question is, which view is more economic. Might be the CA.
- Thomas
I mean - how everything on the (ecliptic) is seen, when some hypothetical nonEuclidity strikes, after the circular train has reached 99% of the speed of light?
;)
What happens with the image of the stars? Nothing, I suppose. Nothing, as with the train. Nothing, as with a single car.
- Thomas
P.S.
You can send me - 0375708111 - of course.
I would really like to see it!
What about the background Milky way in the meantime???
- Thomas
Anyway, who's not totally blind and/or brainwashed, must admit that:
.99 speed of light with a small binding force.
- a train car 1000 ly away can orbit around us with the
- SR shrinks it to 1/7 of it's initial length
- so the angle we see it, let be 1 degree at the begging (low speed) and therefore 1/7 degree at the high speed of 0.99 c.
- how is it, if/when the whole train is circular?
Which you don't like?
- Thomas
The "explanation" worth nothing. Copy it here!
- Thomas
Who is complaining about the force? Not me.
But if you want - you can minimize them arbitrary, by going to the bigger distances.
- Thomas
> If you expect contraction of the radius, it simply means you don't understand SR.
I don't! Nor the contraction of the perimeter.
You expect what?
> how are you accounting for the fact that at different points along the track, train cars or satellites are moving in *opposite directions*
If I am in the center - the simplest case - the contraction suppose to be the same everywhere. No essential difference, if I am not at the center. Some contraction everywhere. At least SR claims that.
>general relativity has to be considered because of the constant and extremely high acceleration in this example
Much less than in the case of the Geneva accelerator. But if we move out to the Galaxy dimensions - there is almost no acceleration.
> I'd have to do the math to figure out exactly what would and wouldn't be observable in this case
Indeed! You'd had to!
> In general, I would expect observable effects, but certainly not to the same degree as the non circular case
How do you know, that you are not observing a circular case, watching ONE car?
> contraction in this case would be observable, because the motion is in a constant direction and thus the SR effect is not affected by continuous changes in direction
It is ALWAYS some acceleration involved. The gravitation of a distant star - whatever. Do you suggest, that SR never holds?
- Thomas
> You can't measure the length of the 'wagon' by the time it takes to go by when it's going by at relativistic speeds
Of course I can. I see no reason why not. Why? Who says, I can't?
> because we don't generally see anything moving more than 0.001% of light speed
Of course we do. Distant galaxies travel with 0.3 c or more.
> every experiment ever performed to test relativity has indicated that these effects do occur
Which one indicated the shrinking?
- Thomas
If you substitute the Earth with the Galaxy, the force is smaller, then the tidal force on Earth. Much smaller.
What than?
Please, use your own intelligence - not just follow the crowd.
- Thomas
> The circular train/satellite network is a nice try, but it doesn't succeed
The conclusion, that there is no contraction (observable) is enough. It's against SR.
Do you think, that there IS observable contraction:
- in this case?
- in the case of noncircular train?
- Thomas
> I was asking you what a vagon is. It's not an English word. Are you going to tell me?
My bad. "vagon" = "wagon". Sorry.
> Length contraction occurs
But is not observable?
> Eventually, the interatomic spacing is large enough that the ring breaks
What about _intra_ atomic?
You say it must break, when it is 1/2 of the original? How it is look just before then?
- Thomas
> The problem is that to see obvious dilation effects that don't require very sensitive equipment (like atomic clocks) to measure, you need objects travelling close to light speed, which is rather difficult to arrange. Nevertheless, verification of the theory has been successfully performed in all sorts of ways.
But NEVER a contraction has been observed.
- Thomas
If I seat by the equator, and the train passes by me, I can always measure the length of the wagon, by the time it took to go by.
The problem arises, when all the wagons (let say 360 of them) are so contracted, that they _all together_ need only 1/100 of second to pass - instead 1/7.5!
Nor me, nor the lions don't see any weird geometry around us - which had to save the SR.
- Thomas
> were quickly resolved and were thereafter uninteresting.
.99 c, when it's wagons should be only 1/7 of theirs initial length?
Yeah! I just wonder, how the very long circular train is seen. Several light years long, orbiting around us?
First slowly, so there is no so called relativistic contraction - then with
- Thomas
> What is a vagon?
What is a satellite?
That kind of relativism - "What is a vagon?" - can hardly do any good to the S(G)R.
> the length of the train nor the strength of the force is relevant here
So - doesn't matter if it shrinks, or not?
- Thomas
Try rather to explain the rigid ring, then give me some stupid mantra.
- do satellites contract?
- does the network of them contract?
- is it visible in principle?
Answer honestly, IF you can.
- Thomas
IMHO, Ehrenfest has found this problem shortly after the Relativity was born.
Yet, the rigid ring IS almost ignored since.
- Thomas
It is like somebody has claimed, that he has a microscope, which enlarges angles.
How the 360 degrees is seen?
Not possible even in a cartoon. Just like those shrunken wagons.
- Thomas
> For high enough speed, the structure gets torn apart.
Is this a relativistic effect? GR or SR?
- Thomas
So, every vagon is seen shorter?
- Thomas
p.s.
Explanation on that site is quite silly. What if the train is light years long? Where is the tremendous force?
> I think your earlier confusion was that if the train cars shrink as seen by an outside oberver, how does the train stay attached? The best answer that can be given in a few minutes on slashdot is that the General Relativity effects balance it out somehow
I am still confused.
> the General Relativity effects balance it out somehow
That there is no contraction? That's my point!
- Thomas
You say, that two electrons can't be accerelated beyond a certain speed? They would be "too close"?
- Thomas
That is of course not true!
The force inside the rigid ring could be arbitrary small. The question of the radius. If it is large enough - several light years - the force is quite small.
- Thomas
No. We don't see 1 meter initial distance between two electrons in the accelerator, how it shrinks to let say 14 cm.
- Thomas