Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 There's a difference between an outside observer sees and what actually happens, you know. That's the effect of time dilation.
Sayonara Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 I am not sure what sayo is wanting me to explain. it is pretty simple. I simply wanted you to explain your argument in a clearer and more comprehensive fashion, but since you seem to want to just have any old argument I couldn't care less. Given that the radius of a circle is the distance between a point on the circumference and the center, if the circumference increases due to relativistic effects I don't see how the radius can stay the same, even if those rel. effects do not apply to it. Surely it increases simply because the circumference does?
ydoaPs Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 time actually slows down when in motion. it has been proven with jets and atomic clocks.
Sayonara Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 yes, you did. You really are stupid sometimes. time actually slows down when in motion. it has been proven with jets and atomic clocks. What has that got to do with anything?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Surely it increases simply because the circumference does?It should. If the circumfrence gets bigger, then the circle is wider, so the radius also has to expand. It's not like the radius is a fixed object.edit: shoot, he beat me with a second reply!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 You really are stupid sometimes.Close.i guess am a just a sick and twisted alien vampire
Sayonara Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 It should. If the circumfrence gets bigger, then the circle is wider, so the radius also has to expand. It's not like the radius is a fixed object. Well I am guessing the way around that is that the disc distorts (perhaps adopts non-euclidean geometry), but then it's not a circle.
ydoaPs Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 I simply wanted you to explain your argument in a clearer and more comprehensive fashion' date=' but since you seem to want to just have any old argument I couldn't care less. Given that the radius of a circle is the distance between a point on the circumference and the center, if the circumference increases due to relativistic effects I don't see how the radius can stay the same, even if those rel. effects do not apply to it. Surely it increases simply because the circumference does?[/quote'] ok, lets try to be more clear. given: as speed-->c, distance shrinks in direction of motion pi= circumference/diameter equation of circle is [math](x-h)^2+(y-k)^2=r^2[/math] radius has no length in the direction of motion circumference shrinks radius and center stay the same therefore: it is still a circle pi is not a constant
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Well I am guessing the way around that is that the disc distorts (perhaps adopts non-euclidean geometry), but then it's not a circleExactly.Did you like my quote from him?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 ok' date=' lets try to be more clear. given: as speed-->c, distance shrinks in direction of motion pi= circumference/diameter equation of circle is http://www.blike.com/tex/lateximg/pictures/7080388855e2e65d5665478c67051038.gif radius has no length in the direction of motion circumference shrinks radius and center stay the same therefore: it is still a circle pi is not a constant IF THE CIRCUMFRENCE SHRINKS, then the stupid circle is smaller, meaning the radius is smaller. The radius is NOT fixed. is a constant.ps: Sayo: Why were all of the mods in IRC but not talking to me?
ydoaPs Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 the radius does not shrink i liked the quote, that is why i typed it
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Why doesn't it? If the circle is SMALLER, the radius must get SMALLER too. It won't stick out the side of the circle and make it an impaled circle.
ydoaPs Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 distance only shrinks in direction of motion. that is why i made the post in the first place. odd problem. i am going to ask my physics professor tommarrow
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 It may, but it still shrinks the circle and makes the circle smaller. Go ahead, ask him.
Aeschylus Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 There's a difference between an outside observer sees and what actually happens, you know. That's the effect of time dilation. No, there is no difference as what 'actually' happens is frame dependent. What you are doing is suggesting that there is a prefered frame in relativty, this goes against the fundamentals of the theory of relativty.
ydoaPs Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 it may be some odd new form of geometry(long shot, but maybe) how do you know it is a him? don't assume things.
Aeschylus Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 What happens is that thegeomtry changes, the geometry (as demonstrated by a link earlier) can no longer be Euclidean so the ratio is no longer pi.
Sayonara Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 No, there is no difference as what 'actually' happens is frame dependent. What you are doing is suggesting that there is a prefered frame in relativty, this goes against the fundamentals of the theory of relativty. I'm not sure he wrote what he meant to say.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 That happens to me sometimes. Sorry. But I'm still right.
jordan Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 I don't think the radius is a strict line exactly. The definition of it would be the distance from the circumfrence to the enter of the circle. The radius isn't an actual, physical part of the circle like the circumfrence is and therefore I don't believe it responds to relativity (or whatever you're saying). It simple adjusts as the circumfrence adjusts because that is the definition of it.
Sayonara Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 What happens is that thegeomtry changes, the geometry (as demonstrated by a link earlier) can no longer be Euclidean so the ratio is no longer pi. So the big question we all want answering is "is it still a circle?"
ydoaPs Posted August 24, 2004 Author Posted August 24, 2004 the radius only has one dimension and it doesn't shrink due to motion. the cercumference has nothing to do with if an object is a circle; it is just the length of the distance from one point in the set to itself. edit: it still has the same equation, it is still a circle.
Aeschylus Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 So the big question we all want answering is "is it still a circle?" Yes, for example the geodesics on the surface of a sphere run along what we call still call 'great circles'. It also meets the defintion as a set of points equidistant from a given point.
Sayonara Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 the radius only has one dimension and it doesn't shrink due to motion. You don't get what we're saying. All that's telling us it that the radius does not shrink due to relativity. It does not tell us that the radius does not shrink "at all".
Sayonara Posted August 24, 2004 Posted August 24, 2004 Yes' date=' for example the geodesics on the surface of a sphere run along what we call still call 'great circles'.It also meets the defintion as a set of points equidistant from a given point.[/quote'] Do you know of any representations of that geometry I can take a look at?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now