🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 30, 10:37 pm, JanPB <film...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2:30 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://hem.bredband.net/b153434/Works/Einstein.htm
> > Divine Albert: "In a space which is free of gravitational fields we
> > introduce a Galilean system of reference K (x, y, z, t), and also a
> > system of co-ordinates K' (x', y', z', t') in uniform rotation
> > relatively to K. Let the origins of both systems, as well as their
> > axes of Z, permanently coincide. We shall show that for a space-time
> > measurement in the system K' the above definition of the physical
> > meaning of lengths and times cannot be maintained. For reasons of
> > symmetry it is clear that a circle around the origin in the X, Y plane
> > of K may at the same time be regarded as a circle in the X', Y' plane
> > of K'. We suppose that the circumference and diameter of this circle
> > have been measured with a unit measure infinitely small compared with
> > the radius, and that we have the quotient of the two results. If this
> > experiment were performed with a measuring-rod at rest relatively to
> > the Galilean system K, the quotient would be [pi]. With a measuring-
> > rod at rest relatively to K', the quotient would be greater than [pi].
> > This is readily understood if we envisage the whole process of
> > measuring from the "stationary" system K, and take into consideration
> > that the measuring-rod applied to the periphery undergoes a Lorentzian
> > contraction, while the one applied along the radius does not. Hence
> > Euclidean geometry does not apply to K'."
>
> > Why does Divine Albert believe that, "with a measuring-rod at rest
> > relatively to K', the quotient would be greater than [pi]"? Obviously
> > because "the measuring-rod applied to the periphery undergoes a
> > Lorentzian contraction". Then why does the segment of the periphery,
> > to which the measuring-rod is applied and which moves together with
> > the measuring-rod, fail to undergo a Lorentzian contraction?
>
> The bulk of the disc prevents it. The circumference wants to contract
> but it can't - it develops internal strain instead.

Bravo zombie! Without your explanation one may be misled into thinking
that Divine Albert has just plagiarized Poincare's 1902 result,
without caring about the fact that essentially the two thought
experiments have nothing to do with one another. Of course you should
have added that sometimes material objects both WANT and CAN contract
- otherwise you would be unable to explain how your Masters in
Einstein criminal cult can trap a long train inside a short tunnel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY&mode=related&search=

and also  a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com