🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 30, 11:31 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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,
[etc. etc.]

If you have a question - ask. There is no need to pretend you are
providing a valid critique when all you want is get an answer to a
question you cannot figure out yourself.

Just ask. Don't attack - it's infantile.

--
Jan Bielawski