0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The solution is to find a reference that is the same for all. That reference is the speed of light reference, which is the same in all inertial frames.
Off subject, but why did you have to lock the DebatePhysics thread?
Happy New Year to all!If I take the posts #190 and #194, ask the question about the inertial frames disagreement on the angular velocity after the collision in the physics forum, would it be moved to new theories?
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 03/01/2022 20:01:15Happy New Year to all!If I take the posts #190 and #194, ask the question about the inertial frames disagreement on the angular velocity after the collision in the physics forum, would it be moved to new theories?Happy New Year To you too.Best keep it where it is, saves us the trouble of moving it here.
The most noble inclination of the Human Nature is the pursuit of the truth.
Do you agree the pointed out contradiction is end result of our current physics understanding?
OK, so some force is applied between the two objects like a spring attached at the axle that forces an elastic collision, with one spinning wheel in one case and not spinning in the other. That's going to involve an objective vertical displacement of both objects.
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 04/01/2022 00:55:38The most noble inclination of the Human Nature is the pursuit of the truth.Then why are you constantly posting a thread asserting self contradictory nonsense? Asking questions is fine, but asserting crap is why this topic is here.QuoteDo you agree the pointed out contradiction is end result of our current physics understanding?No. It's the end result of your lack of it. The interaction mentioned can only have one single objective result, which was mentioned above, but you ignored it since it doesn't agree with your assertions (based it seems on Newtonian intuition, which are just plain wrong in relativistic scenarios.)Post 188:Quote from: Halc on 24/12/2021 23:33:07OK, so some force is applied between the two objects like a spring attached at the axle that forces an elastic collision, with one spinning wheel in one case and not spinning in the other. That's going to involve an objective vertical displacement of both objects.Everybody in any frame sees a vertical displacement due to the collision. No contradiction. Your logic asserting other wise (in the frame of the spinning wheel) is wrong since it is based on assumptions demonstrated centuries ago to be inconsistent.
I appreciate an honest feedback from the knowledgeable members.
If the equivalency principle is correct why do we experimentally isolate the accelerated expansion of the universe from gravity, using what we assume to be experimental proof? We should not be able to distinguish dark energy from gravity in term of the expansion from any frame of reference.One way to maintain the equivalency principle is to not assume an secondary force but to assume an action and reaction based only on gravity. The exothermic action of gravity; lowering gravitational potential, will create an endothermic reaction; increase gravitational potential elsewhere; expansion, so both appear to be from one indistinguishable source.All force creates an acceleration which is one part distance and two parts time; d/t/t. The concept of space-time only has the units of d-t. The concept of space-time lacks the second vector of time associated with force and acceleration. Therefore the second time vector is not easy to measure based on standard assumptions using the concept of space-time. The second time vector involves time apart from space. It cannot be a sine wave in the traditional sense since this is 1-D and not 2-D like space-time.For example, in the action/reaction of forming stars, the materials will rotate, with rotation expressed as frequency; reciprocal of time, without distance units. This creates a centrifugal force vector opposite the gravity vector; action-reaction. In the case of spiral galaxies, the second time vector is not uniform based on mass densities.
your concern from the post #188 was addressed in my post #190
There is a non-rotating casing around the rotating flywheel.
There is no cause for objective vertical displacement in the rotating flywheel frame S.
All centroids are on the straight line collision in the S frame.
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 04/01/2022 03:32:41your concern from the post #188 was addressed in my post #190I did not express a concern in post 188. It was simply the objective answer for which you asked, and which you continue to deny apparently because denial (not learning) is your goal. I didn't reply to 190 since your goal of denial was successfully met.If your analysis contradicts the 400 year old PoR (Principle of Relativity), then it contradicts all the theories based on it, including Newton's. It means either that the last 4 centuries of science based on the principle is wrong (highly unlikely not to have been noticed by now), or it is you (who demonstrably has trouble with even high-school physics) is wrong. So take a humble pill and ask where your analysis went awry, and lay off the troll assertions that you've actually uncovered some kind of flaw in physics. That's what I do when I get a contradictory result. I assume the problem is with me, a known amateur. It happens a lot, but I don't go around asserting that physics is wrong. I just found a mistake in my understanding, and if I can't work it out myself (as is sometimes the case), then I seek help from those better informed.We all make mistakes, and my answers are also not always correct....
QuoteThere is a non-rotating casing around the rotating flywheel.That changes absolutely nothing. It just makes it more obvious that the force on the spinning wheel is being applied to the axle and not elsewhere, as it always has been. The post 188 reply is still unchanged.
Why do you keep bringing up 400 years old PoR?
The relativistic AM is frame dependent. Why is it so hard to understand the change of relativistic AM is going to be frame dependent as well?
What force is going to cause vertical displacement when the collision in x direction is observed from the S frame?
Because you seem to be denying it in almost every post, despite a different (and unreferenced) principle in the thread title.
... All I said was that after the collision, the left wheel will end up with a downward velocity component balanced by an upward one of the right wheel...
Quote from: Jaaanosik on 04/01/2022 18:33:45Why do you keep bringing up 400 years old PoR?Because you seem to be denying it in almost every post
This is not going to happen in the S frame.
Based on that, would this thread be a candidate for being locked since it's basically denialism?
There is nothing in the collision that would force the rotating wheel in the casing to move downward when the analysis is done from the S frame.