[Bored chemist]

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.

The SoL is the same in all reference frames, but it is not a reference frame.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

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?
I hope it would not because there is nothing new, I just quoted the paper and I added my question.

[maul]

Off subject, but why did you have to lock the DebatePhysics thread? I'm no fan of his theories, but how exactly is it hurting anybody to leave it open and let the discussion continue? I have to say I really dislike these types of overly zealous moderation decisions, where mods just can't help but exercise their powers, and feel the need to prohibit people from freely discussing something. Maybe you can re-open it for a few more weeks?

[Kryptid]

Off subject, but why did you have to lock the DebatePhysics thread?

I see you are new to these forums, but this is the kind of question that should be sent via PM to the moderators instead of making an off-topic post in an existing thread. In any case, I'll do what I can to address your concerns.

We have, unfortunately, had a history of members making very long threads that end up running around in circles with nothing ever being accomplished because the member who started the thread consistently refuses to learn about the most basic principles of physics. As an example, we had someone who insisted (among other things) that black holes can make new energy (and thus violate the first law of thermodynamics). No matter how many times it was explained to that member, we could not convince him otherwise and the thread ended up running for over a year. It was a waste of forum resources that shouldn't have happened. I could tell, based on DebatePhysics' responses in the thread and the fact that he has a YouTube channel filled to the bring with physics nonsense that allowing that thread to continue would have resulted in the exact same kind of thing happening.

It was only recently decided by the staff here that we should work to minimize scientific misinformation. You want to propose a new theory that attempts to fill in the knowledge gaps of current science? That's perfectly fine. At least by doing that, denialism isn't required. It's a different matter altogether to say that a well-tested idea that is widely accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong, provide a fallacious understanding of the material as "proof" that it is wrong, and then refuse to concede that their understanding is wrong even after everyone else present has tried to correct them. That is useless. It doesn't do anything but make people get frustrated. As such, we don't want that to happen here.

[Colin2B]

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?

Happy New Year To you too.

Best keep it where it is, saves us the trouble of moving it here.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

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?

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.
I appreciate an honest feedback from the knowledgeable members.
Do you agree the pointed out contradiction is end result of our current physics understanding?
I did not add/change any math.

[Halc]

The 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 bad science is why this topic is here.

Do 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:

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.

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.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

The 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.

Do 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:

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.

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.

Halc,
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.

[puppypower]

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.

[Colin2B]

I appreciate an honest feedback from the knowledgeable members.

and you are getting it in this section of the forum

[Origin]

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.

Warning:  no actual physics is in this rambling word salad.  Time is still not a vector...

[Halc]

your concern from the post #188 was addressed in my post #190

I 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.

There 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.

There is no cause for objective vertical displacement in the rotating flywheel frame S.

Obviously there is since it gets vertically displaced. This statement simply contradicts my post 188 that you asked for, but without justifying the assertion.

All centroids are on the straight line collision in the S frame.

Newton would have agreed with this bit, but he also would have said there is no displacement in the other frame since all centers of mass (not the centroids, unclear why you find that important) are always lined up, so PoR is not violated. Einstein on the other hand would not have agreed, but PoR is not violated by either theory. Only by your assertions.

Centroids are frame dependent, so the objective vertical displacement obviously cannot be a function only of it. You're not taking into account the proper horizontal acceleration of the spinning wheel, which will cause a vertical displacement of the casing/axle, per special relativity. You're treating the wheel like it's always stationary in this frame, which it obviously isn't.  That was pretty easy, no?
And still, no application ever of the Equivalence Principle in this entire thread.  Puppypower mentioned it as you have on occasion, but his word salad doesn't constitute a valid application of the principle or of physics in general.

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

your concern from the post #188 was addressed in my post #190

I 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.
...

We are analyzing the relativistic flywheel.



Newton/Galileo worked with absolute time therefore they achieved AM invariance.
The relativistic flywheel is different, the AM varies under the Lorentz transformation.
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?
The relativistic energy change is also frame dependent as well, agreed?

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

There 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.

What force is going to cause vertical displacement when the collision in x direction is observed from the S frame?

[Halc]

Why do you keep bringing up 400 years old PoR?

Because you seem to be denying it in almost every post, despite a different (and unreferenced) principle in the thread title.

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?

I don't recall referencing the AM when making my argument. In any frame, the change of system AM is zero, per conservation laws. Ditto with energy since you're describing an elastic collision with no energy lost to heat. But I did not reference any of these things nor did I quantify the motion of this incompletely specified scenario. 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. This must be observed in all frames, per PoR of which you are in denial.

What force is going to cause vertical displacement when the collision in x direction is observed from the S frame?

l was really hoping you'd figure this out yourself, but it seems your goals prevent that.
First of all, observation has nothing to do with it. Observation is not a cause (except arguably in QM).

A force is required only if the vertical linear momentum is changed, which it isn't, at least not at first when the forces between the two is entirely along the X axis. So it moves down not due to a force/momentum change, but rather to a change in the internal mass of the object.  If an airplane is stationary in space, pointed north, and one pumps fuel from the west wing tank to the east wing tank, the airplane as a whole will move west despite no external force being applied to it and despite it having zero momentum the whole time. Same sort of thing happens as the rotating wheel accelerates left: The internal mass moves up, so the axle/casing moves down to compensate, preserving the center of mass.
Now the two masses (the two wheels) are no aligned along the x axis, and the force between them has a vertical component, giving the wheels nonzero vertical momentum components, so the motion will not cease once the acceleration of the collision does.

[Kryptid]

Because you seem to be denying it in almost every post, despite a different (and unreferenced) principle in the thread title.

Based on that, would this thread be a candidate for being locked since it's basically denialism?

[Jaaanosik (OP)]

... 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...

This is not going to happen in the S frame.
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.
The forces transferred from the casing to the axle and rotating wheel are symmetrical. Nothing to move the flywheel down, just left/right after the collision.

[Halc]

Why 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.

And there it is again, an assertion that something happens only in one abstract coordinate system and not another, a direct denial of PoR.

Based on that, would this thread be a candidate for being locked since it's basically denialism?

I agree. This has turned into straight denialism, without even pretending to have noticed the explanations provided. Thread locked.

The entire prior post is just pure repetition of prior assertions. You've seeming not bothered to read the prior explanations at all, which explain exactly why vertical displacement must result. I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said.

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.

Repetition of a wrong statement doesn't make it more correct.

There is no symmetry.  The left wheel is rotating, the case around it is not.
Between the two sides, the one side has a rotating wheel and the other does not. You want symmetry, put a wheel rotating the other way in the right side. You'll still get a vertical displacement, but no change in vertical momentum component.