Jump to content

Circle.


ydoaPs

Is a circle spinning near c still a circle?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Is a circle spinning near c still a circle?



Recommended Posts

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not entirely convinced you've got this right. When you're talking about relativistic problems, you need to clearly state what inertial frame you're in and what exactly is going on.

 

Moreover, I'm not even sure you can apply special relativity to this problem, because these laws only apply when you're in a non-accelerating (i.e. inertial) frame of reference. This obviously isn't true for circular motion; you're constantly accelerating towards the centre of the circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the reference frame of an outside observer

So when I said "I'm not sure if yourdad meant to say that the circumference was actually affected, or if it just appears that way to someone in a different relatavistic frame" way back in post #20, you ignored it because...?

 

The changing view of the circle to an outside observer is not the same as the circle's geometry actually changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yourdad. is actually correct, the dimensions of the disc have changed, you can't say that the proper diemnsions of the disc are it's actual dimensions, it is not an illusion.

Well then I guess it's a good job I didn't say that, now isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you said is:

 

 

So when I said "I'm not sure if yourdad meant to say that the circumference was actually affected' date=' or if it just appears that way to someone in a different relatavistic frame"[/i'] way back in post #20, you ignored it because...?

 

The changing view of the circle to an outside observer is not the same as the circle's geometry actually changing.

 

This is incorrect, it is exactly the same as the geometry of that circle changing in that frame of reference and I'll say it again :you should not equate the proper dimensions (the dimensionsn of the disc in it's own frame) with the actual dimensions of the disc as they are frame dependent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incorrect, it is exactly[/i'] the same as the geometry of that circle changing in that frame of reference and I'll say it again :you should not equate the proper dimensions (the dimensionsn of the disc in it's own frame) with the actual dimensions of the disc as they are frame dependent.

No, it's only the same under those specific circumstances. What I wanted from Yourdad was an explanation of why in terms of relativity (as you just provided), since otherwise there would be no reason why I could not just provide an image of a circle as distorted by a laterally convex mirror and make the same claims.

 

Although I appreciate the response (god knows I can't expect one from yourdad), I don't need you to reinterpret what I said for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quoted post is a non sequitur[/i'] and has nothing to do with my question or the point that followed. Try again.

 

no it is not. it is an inference based on your post. you said the contraction of length is an illusion, so I assumed you also thought time dialation is also an illusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no it is not. it is an inference based on your post. you said the contraction of length is an illusion, so I assumed you also thought time dialation is also an illusion.

No, I did not say that it was an illusion. The crazy in your head speaks for you, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.