Jump to content
Science Forums

AnssiH

Members
  • Content Count

    829
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

AnssiH last won the day on July 21

AnssiH had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About AnssiH

  • Rank
    Understanding
  1. So, going back to the topic of the OP, it seems to me that it would make sense to publish this solution somewhere. I mean we have over a century of silly solutions, so maybe it's time... There must be people out there who'd be interested of understanding how it actually pans out under SR. I'm absolutely confident this is correct solution because it just falls out of purely SR logic without violating anything in SR. I could write a cleaned up, clearer, more concise / focused version. Maybe add a clarifying picture or two if it feels necessary. (Any feedback for anything that felt unclear in th
  2. Yeah I noticed the comments about this when reading that thread on the other forum. Seems kind of strange to assume that beyond our observational boundary nothing would influence things inside our boundary... But throughout the history of natural philosophy we have found - to the surprise of most people - that we are further and further away from the center of the universe. And step by step we have found that we are smaller than we think. Again this really says more about the human psychology than the universe... And on that token, the common Big Bang view just really does place us in a re
  3. That's quite interesting. This is a topic I'm not too familiar with so I can't say much. But I noticed people quite aggressively defending "conventional views" on that other forum. I must say that in general the whole general topic of dark matter, dark energy, big bang theory etc, is so full of shaky assumptions, crude approximations and dependencies to rather fragile aspects of our current theories, that I find little bit silly to take any of it as much more than highly hypothetical musings. I mean, it's hard to think of a more arrogant thing to say than "we know the age of the universe" or
  4. I'm not familiar with Penrose's argument on this matter, but I touched the topic of people trying to solve the paradox with additional dynamics, and why that is immediately off-topic. Of course there are no "rigid bodies" because there's no infinite information speeds holding objects together. But the point of the paradox is to question how does purely abstract geometry work in terms of relativistic transformation. A single inertial frame is expressed in euclidean coordinate system by definition, therefore a snapshot of a disk must also be expressible as euclidean no matter what inertial fra
  5. Yeah I would pretty much agree with that. It's a bit unfortunate that it's so popular to see these concepts as something much more than very handy mental ideas.
  6. Yeah I would consider that one of the better representations of the issue, because it draws out the fact that the whole thing arises from the notion of dynamic simultaneity. And note how he represents objects as a set of spatial/temporal events to make the actual logical mechanism clear - exactly what I'm talking about in my previous long post. Another thing that his apparatus also makes very clear is that the frame transformation really does just scale events around - there is no way to end up into a self-contradiction even if you are transforming events that represent a spinning disk. Thos
  7. Yes but by "paradox" we mean an apparent inconsistency within the framework of a theory. It has got nothing to do with observations. And if the theory is actually self-consistent, the solution is also purely logical work. It's just about identifying the error in the assumptions leading to paradox, and how the situation actually must be represented in the framework of that theory. Generally paradoxes are cases of applying the rules of a theory in inconsistent manner. That is exactly what has happened with Ehrenfest Paradox. That is why I'm so surprised that the actual correct, purely logical
  8. Hey Laurie, I remember you from this forum back in the day. I can hardly believe it's been over 10 years... :I Thanks, that was an interesting read. It reinforces my views on the reasons why people tend to get this so wrong. Everyone make a wrong assumption about infinitesimal Lorentz contraction right at the get-go without thinking about it critically. The correct solution does not seem to appear anywhere on that paper (they get the rolling disk case right though. But that's not the original paradox). Truthfully, I'm quite dumbfounded about all of this. The commonly presented solutions
  9. Yeah, I actually discussed that exact topic here http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35098-relativity-and-simple-algebra/?view=findpost&p=385984 which you might find interesting. Anyway, yeah I would have agreed on that same junction - when Special Relativity was first introduced and it was mathematically exactly identical to Lorentz' latest theory - that redundant concepts are redundant. But then couple years later people invented a new redundant concept, the Minkowski Spacetime, which should have been recognized as equally redundant. But it made great headlines, I guess :shrug: Basical
  10. Yeah, everything's a collection of microscopic elements that can only communicate at maximum speed of C. That puts an upper bound on "rigidity". But I have no idea why you are bringing that up?
  11. The point is, they cannot possibly co-incide except by an infinitesimally small slice of the rotating rod. When you imagine the rods as fully co-inciding, you are committing exactly the logical error I try to explain - and map the situation in inconsistent manner. As I said, this error is incredibly pervasive and everyone just does it without giving it a second thought. A rod cannot be tied to the rotating wheel and and still also occupy a single inertial frame through its length. Taking this simple fact into account correctly solves the paradox entirely.
  12. I think there are quite many possibilities, especially when taking into account that the concept of intrinsic mass is so deep in our current models, it is quite likely that this would change the perspective very radically and likely imply different breakdown of "fundamental particles". In particular, I think the complexity of Standard Model is a tell-tale sign that simpler possibilities exist. But there is something very interesting going on with the Standard Model also in this regard, if we just directly apply this principle onto it (which may be invalid after rigorous analysis, but gives som
  13. I just recently stumbled upon a Quora question regarding Ehrenfest Paradox, and noticed that people were giving completely wrong answers to it. Basically the paradox is this; In terms of Special Relativity, how does spinning disk work in special relativity, if the circumference of the rotating disk undergoes length-contraction (since it's parallel to motion) while its radius does not (since it's perpendicular to motion), and this would imply that [math]\frac{circumference}{diameter} \neq \pi [/math]. I checked bunch of similar questions of the same topic, and can't find a single person g
  14. Sorry, I still don't understand how you view this... With Loedel frame you only get shared notion of time between two observers, but what about the rest of the universe? Or just add a third observer; what is the convention you'd use in that case?
×
×
  • Create New...