Is Velocity Addition in Special Relativity Contradictory?

[Austin0]

O Austin0!
I'm just want to see a precise argument for the 0.9c claim. In the hope that: when we clearly see the assumptions that go into the argument, and the chain of reasoning, we'll be able to see where it goes wrong and where and how intuition led us astray and then there'll be enlightenment for all.

I have no doubt that you are fully capable of providing a precies argument for the .9 conclusion yourself if you so desired ,using the same logic and mechanics that Ich employed to derive the .45 c velocity in the tank frame.

If it turns out there is no error, then we've found a contradiction in SR and this thread will ascend into immortality, and it's Nobel Prizes all round. Just a precise, step be step, argument, with premises, logical chains, `this, then this, therefore that' - you know the kind of thing...

-oh, wait.

AH! you mean the same kind of of precise step by step argument that Ich presented.
??
As for our impending Nobels I think I won't bother clearing space on the mantel yet. Wait I don't have a mantle.
As for contradiction in SR I don't see that possibility as this question is strictly speaking outside the applicability of the Addition of Velocities equation. WHich is just an equation which does not incorporate physical logic outside of inertial systems.
BTW what was the meaning of your final "-oh, wait.".....? Anticipation of your Nobel or was the coffee ready and you needed a break?

 

[Austin0]

Let's try a simple logic argument as the relativity of simultaneity in this case, although an easy concept is, for me, hard to explain rigorously in a few words in this case. Viewing things in the rest frame of the body of the tank the driving mechanism either stands the strain or it does not and flies apart. You seem to be saying that there is no problem from the point of view of the tank. Let us assume that apart from the ridiculously high speeds that this is so. If the mechanism remains intact in one frame then it remains intact in all frames and of course the converse is also true.

Matheinste

ExaCTLY

 

[Austin0]

Maybe - but the `amount' (pseudo)argument is generated just from the point of view of the stationary observer - from naive calculations, the upper track isn't moving fast enough to get rid of the amount of track from below that's being fed in. Eventually, something must give. It's hard to see how relativity of simultaneity can help here, as he's not changing frame. If, however, because of relativity the upper track has been stretched or is just contracted, then I can see how the amount argument fails.

Isn't the stretched idea itself completely outside physics as we know it?

If you simply assume gearing between the track and both wheels then the "amount" has a precise geometric and quantitive evasluation doesn't it?

If not then it would appear incumbent on you to provide a reasonable alternative view, no?

 

[matheinste]

I have no doubt that you are fully capable of providing a precies argument for the .9 conclusion yourself if you so desired ,using the same logic and mechanics that Ich employed to derive the .45 c velocity in the tank frame.



AH! you mean the same kind of of precise step by step argument that Ich presented.
??
As for our impending Nobels I think I won't bother clearing space on the mantel yet. Wait I don't have a mantle.
As for contradiction in SR I don't see that possibility as this question is strictly speaking outside the applicability of the Addition of Velocities equation. WHich is just an equation which does not incorporate physical logic outside of inertial systems.
BTW what was the meaning of your final "-oh, wait.".....? Anticipation of your Nobel or was the coffee ready and you needed a break?

My argument is against the 0.9c value of the relative speed of the top track relative to the ground. In other words the top track is not moving at twice the speed of the tank relative to the ground.

The use of the relativity velocity addition formula is applicable as I and others have implied throughout the thread by using, or in my case mentioning, the relativity formula for velocities. It is no different from the usual case of a spaceship flying at 0.45c realtive to the Earth and a second one flying at 0.45c relative to the first. The second spaceship is not traveling at twice the speed of the first relative to the eatrth

Matheinste.

 

[Fredrik]

If the tank moves at .45c in the ground frame,
and the top track moves 2x the speed of the tank to function correctly,
then the top track moves at .90c in the ground frame.

Let's assume that this is correct, just to see where it takes us. What you said implies that the bottom track is comoving with the ground. In the ground frame, the tank's velocity is v=0.45 (in units such that c=1). By symmetry (the principle of relativity), or by definition of the inertial frame we associate with the motion of an object, this implies that the velocity of the ground in the tank's frame is -v. So...relative to the tank, the bottom track has velocity -v=-0.45, and relative to the bottom track, the top track has velocity u=0.9 (according to your assumptions). Now the velocity addition formula tells us that the velocity of the top track relative to the tank is (-v+u)/(1+(-v)u))=(-0.45+0.9)/(1-0.45*0.9)=0.45/0.595≈0.756, while the velocity of the bottom track relative to the tank is -0.45. This contradicts your other claim:

The driver/tank must see the same amount of track moving forward as that moving backward, since the amount of track is constant.

So your assumptions can't all be correct.

 

[DrGreg]

O Austin0!
I'm just want to see a precise argument for the 0.9c claim. In the hope that: when we clearly see the assumptions that go into the argument, and the chain of reasoning, we'll be able to see where it goes wrong and where and how intuition led us astray and then there'll be enlightenment for all.

I have no doubt that you are fully capable of providing a precies argument for the .9 conclusion yourself if you so desired ,using the same logic and mechanics that Ich employed to derive the .45 c velocity in the tank frame.

I think you misunderstand the point yossell is making. As far as I can see, unless I've missed it, nobody in this thread has given any reason for the 0.9c velocity in the ground frame that amounts to much more than "it must be", which is no good reason at all. The people who mistakenly believe this to be true need to sit down and think about it and produce a detailed step-by-step proof, then the rest of us can examine the "proof" to find out where the error is.

In the extremely unlikely event that your "proof" has no error, you will go down in history as the person who disproved relativity.

 

[starthaus]

I would like to understand velocity addition and subtraction in special relativity, more than I currently do. It would be greatly appreciated if one could comment on the outcome of the following thought experiment.

Imagine ‘the super-tank’ a tank capable of speeds of 0.45 C is being designed. Someone on the design team, raises a potential problem. When considering the tanks tracks, the tracks that are in-contact with the ground or the bottom-side tracks, have no velocity until the tank moves over them and pulls them to the top-side. The velocity they have according to a stationary observer is twice the speed of the tank.

The member of the design team states that if you treat the tank as the stationary observer, then what ever speed the top-side has the bottom-side needs to have, just in the opposite direction. If this is not the case then the tank tracks would rip apart, as either the top-side or bottom-side tracks would not feed enough track to the other.

It is then shown that the tank will not have the same but opposing velocity for its tracks, in the reference frame of the tank, based on the velocity of the bottom-side tank relative to the ground observer being 0 and the top-side 0.9C.

U = (S-V) / (1-(SV/C^2))
U: The velocity of the tracks according to the tanks frame of reference.
S: The velocity of the tracks according to the ground frame of reference.
V: The velocity of the tank according to the ground frame of reference.
C: the speed of light in a vacuum.

Bottom-side velocity according to the tank
U = (0 - 0.45C) / (1-(0C*0.45C/C^2))
= -0.45C / 1
= -0.45C

Top-side velocity according to the tank
U = (0.9 - 0.45C) / (1-(0.9*0.45/C^2))
= 0.45C / (1-0.405)
= 0.45C / 0.595
= 0.7563C

How can this difference exist considering the concerns of the designer?

The tank body advances at v=0.45c wrt the ground.
Since the tank rolls over the bottom track without slipping, then, in the tank frame

-the bottom of the track moves at v_b=-0.45c
-since the track doesn't stretch, the top of the track moves at v_t=+0.45c

In the gound frame the speeds are different:

v'_t=\frac{v_t+v}{1+vv_t/c^2}=.748c
(not 0.9c as you keep claiming)

v'_b=\frac{v_b+v}{1+vv_b/c^2}=0

v_{tank}=v=0.45c

This is a simple problem, it does not merit so many posts.

 

[Fredrik]

In the extremely unlikely event that your "proof" has no error, you will go down in history as the person who disproved relativity.

I'd like to add that since we're just talking about Minkowski spacetime, which is just the set \mathbb R^2[/itex] with a specific bilinear form defined on it, and since the set and the bilinear form both exist by the ZFC axioms of set theory, it would disprove ZFC as well. So we would have to throw out all of mathematics and start over from square 1...if we can assume that the concept of &quot;1&quot; is still valid. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":smile:" title="Smile :smile:" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":smile:" /><br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="starthaus" data-source="post: 2813876" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-title"> starthaus said: </div> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> This is a simple problem, it does not merit so many posts. </div> </div> </blockquote>Ich posted your solution twice on the first page. Caleb et al are simply ignoring it, because the speed of the top track &quot;must&quot; be twice the speed of the tank. (That&#039;s their argument, not mine).

 

[starthaus]

Ich posted your solution twice on the first page. Caleb et al are simply ignoring it, because the speed of the top track "must" be twice the speed of the tank. (That's their argument, not mine).

I've been scooped
:LOL:

 

[Ich]

phyti and Ich are presenting equally valid perspectives and any choice between them is purely arbitrary and personal.
In one frame the top v must equal bottom -v or the track will disrupt. SO you adjust for this and then in the Earth frame the track disrupts but it is the same track so it appears that both frames agree the track will disrupt

Sorry, but as long as you don't take the time to read what I've written, it'd be a waste of time to write more. We're exactly where we've started.

 

[DrGreg]

phyti and Ich are presenting equally valid perspectives and any choice between them is purely arbitrary and personal.

I've looked through all phyti's posts in this thread and here are all the reasons given for a top speed of 0.9c:

Caleb;
v: speed of tank
vb: speed of bottom tread
vt: speed of top tread
c = 1

The ground observer measures:
v = .45, vb = 0, vt = .9

The top track moves twice as fast as the tank.

the top track moves 2x the speed of the tank to function correctly,

That's it. These are just empty claims with no reasons behind them. Ich's posts actually give some explanation of how his conclusions are reached.

 

[phyti]

Phyti:
What's the reasoning that gets you from here:

to here:

In particular, I want to understand how you justify `the top track moves 2x the speed of the tank to function correctly', particularly in the light of the fact that, in the ground frame, the upper track is heavily lorentz contracted while the lower tread is not.

Using post7 from austino, if the tank is raised off the ground with the track running, to the driver, the top track is moving at +v and the bottom track is moving at -v.
If the tank is set onto the ground acquiring the speed v, then all components must increase speed the same amount so the tank moves as an integrated object. Thus the top track now moves at 2v, the bottom track at 0. Substitute .45c for v and this is the ground pov.
or;
With d=the center to center wheel distance and neglecting the wheel circumference, the driver sees the top move d,
then -d. On the ground the bottom is static, so the 2d motion must be in the top track.

While the top moves 2d forward, the tank moves d.

 

[phyti]

I can only refer to the 1st postulate, the physics is the same in all inertial frames.
If the tank works on Earth at slow speed, then moving it at some high speed shouldn't change the way it works, and definitely moving past it at some high speed cannot alter the way it works.

 

[yuiop]

Here is the problem analysed in terms of length contraction.

Let us say we have a simple tank with axle to axle proper length of 1.0 and a proper track length (considering only the horizontal portions of the track) of 2.0 when the tank engine is off.

In the tank frame (when the engine is on), the lower and upper parts of the track both have relative velocities of magnitude 0.45c so the half length of the track is 0.89302855 in the tank frame due to length contraction. One of the axles would have to have a tension control device to allow one of the axles to move inwards to prevent the track snapping under increased tension and so the axle to axle length in the tank frame would also have to be 0.89302855.

In the ground frame, the tank is moving at 0.45c and the axle to axle length is length contracted to 0.89302855*sqrt(1-0.45^2)= 0.7975.

The part of the track in contact with ground is stationary with respect to the ground frame so that part of the track has proper length 0.7975. The top part of the track also measures 0.7975 in the ground frame but because the top part of the track has relative velocity 0.7484407c in the ground frame (according to relativity), the proper length of the top part of the track is 0.7975/sqrt(1-0.7484407^2) = 1.2025. The total proper length of the track is therefore 0.7975+1.2025=2.0 in the ground frame.

Therefore a top track velocity of 0.7484407 is consistent with the relativistic addition laws and with relativistic length contraction if the total proper length of the track remains the same (2.0) in all frames. All this is totally consistent with relativity.

If the velocity of the top track was 0.9c, the total proper length of the track would not be 2.0 in both frames.

Therefore the velocity of the top track can not be 0.9c, if length contraction is a real physical effect and if proper length is invariant.

 

[phyti]

Let's assume that this is correct, just to see where it takes us. What you said implies that the bottom track is comoving with the ground. In the ground frame, the tank's velocity is v=0.45 (in units such that c=1). By symmetry (the principle of relativity), or by definition of the inertial frame we associate with the motion of an object, this implies that the velocity of the ground in the tank's frame is -v. So...relative to the tank, the bottom track has velocity -v=-0.45, and relative to the bottom track, the top track has velocity u=0.9 (according to your assumptions). Now the velocity addition formula tells us that the velocity of the top track relative to the tank is (-v+u)/(1+(-v)u))=(-0.45+0.9)/(1-0.45*0.9)=0.45/0.595≈0.756, while the velocity of the bottom track relative to the tank is -0.45. This contradicts your other claim:

So your assumptions can't all be correct.

Right, because I was too intent on making the drivers pov symmetrical. After making a rough space-time drawing, I see my mistake.

I have to apologize to Caleb, his original equation was correct. [(0-.45)/(1-0*.45) = -.45]

 

[calebhoilday]

This thread continues without me rather easily. When I made the thread i made the tank speed 0.45 C for a reason. This reason was to ensure that if one assumed to double the speed of the topside, the resulting speed will not equal or exceed C, revealing instantly the fault in the assumption (every other hypothetical use 0.5C).

I have not bothered to read this thread since my last post, but if there has been difficulty in understanding that post, it is equivalent to saying:
V= S/((1-(S^2/C^2))^0.5 +1)
S: the topside velocity
V: the velocity of the tank

As it has been difficult to explain my issue and also difficult for the people who have posted to explain a resolution, I will be watching some youtube edu lectures on special relativity. Hopefully then if a problem still exists then I will be typing in the appropriate discourse.

The Lorentz transformations that are length contraction, time dilation and mass increase I am familiar with, but it is relativity of simultaneity that is a source of difficulty when it comes to a comprehensive understanding. Using space-time to explain such things I feel is inadequate as space-time is formulated from the postulates. The challenge would be to explain how light speed is maintained in both directions with a thought experiment, like the ones Einstein used.

 

[yossell]

Phyti,

If the tank is set onto the ground acquiring the speed v, then all components must increase speed the same amount so the tank moves as an integrated object.

(a) This is question begging
(b) can you edit post 73 as that's not me you've quoted but austin0.

 

[phyti]

I've looked through all phyti's posts in this thread and here are all the reasons given for a top speed of 0.9c:







That's it. These are just empty claims with no reasons behind them. Ich's posts actually give some explanation of how his conclusions are reached.

This http://go.sharehub.com/shared/c6e7efb8-d0f3-4298-98bb-93038fb72b9b" shows why only .90c works.

 

[Fredrik]

This http://go.sharehub.com/shared/c6e7efb8-d0f3-4298-98bb-93038fb72b9b" shows why only .90c works.

Huh. I thought what you said in #75 meant that you now understand that it isn't possible that the topside speed is 0.9. Does this mean that you still think it is?

I don't understand your drawing by the way. You should probably explain it if you want DrGreg to explain what's wrong with it. (I think I'm going to abandon this thread now. The correct answers have been given several times already).

 

[matheinste]

1------Imagine ‘the super-tank’ a tank capable of speeds of 0.45 C is being designed. Someone on the design team, raises a potential problem. When considering the tanks tracks, the tracks that are in-contact with the ground or the bottom-side tracks, have no velocity until the tank moves over them and pulls them to the top-side. The velocity they have according to a stationary observer is twice the speed of the tank.

2------The member of the design team states that if you treat the tank as the stationary observer, then what ever speed the top-side has the bottom-side needs to have, just in the opposite direction.

Another solution. As:-

1 Is false when viewed from the ground frame. (or the tank frame )

2 Is true. The speed of the top and bottom tracks, ignoring any slack in the system, will be opposite and equal with respect to the tank when viewed from the tank.

and if the same designer made both statements get rid of the designer.

Matheinste.

 

[Austin0]

I've looked through all phyti's posts in this thread and here are all the reasons given for a top speed of 0.9c:

Originally Posted by Austin0
phyti and Ich are presenting equally valid perspectives and any choice between them is purely arbitrary and personal.

Originally Posted by phyti
Caleb;
v: speed of tank
vb: speed of bottom tread
vt: speed of top tread
c = 1

The ground observer measures:
v = .45, vb = 0, vt = .9

Originally Posted by phyti
The top track moves twice as fast as the tank.

Originally Posted by phyti
the top track moves 2x the speed of the tank to function correctly,


That's it. These are just empty claims with no reasons behind them. Ich's posts actually give some explanation of how his conclusions are reached.

Post #8....Listen:
The top side does not have a speed of 0.9 c in the ground frame..

Post#1

The member of the design team states that if you treat the tank as the stationary observer, then what ever speed the top-side has the bottom-side needs to have, just in the opposite direction.
If this is not the case then the tank tracks would rip apart, as either the top-side or bottom-side tracks would not feed enough track to the other.

Post #8
From this (valid, btw) logic it is clear that the top side has v=0.45 and the bottom side has v=-.45.
From this, and the velocity addition formula, you get
"If i was on the ground, and the tank has a speed of 0.45C according to my frame of reference, the top-side has a speed of 0.74844C."
And then the subtraction formula works again.

Right here is the sum total of Ich's precise ,step by step logical derivation.
He simply adopted the logic of the OP's hypothetical engineers (who I wouldn't disagree with) , Inserted this assumption (which directly predetermined a unique conclusion) in as an argument and that's the end of the story.

So in fact the sole logical foundation of the argument is "it must be so or the tank won't work"

Later he added the following posts.

Poswt #21

2) Even if this assumption should be correct it still ignores the physics and measurement in the Earth frame.
If you apply the distance traveled according to the .74844 figure and then apply contraction on top of this you get a track point (segment) that has not traveled as far as the wheel base and gearing. The contraction figure for the base is .8930 and for the track is .6632.SO either something is amiss or the track should decompose.

There are the additional questions; in the tank frame both the top and bottom are moving and so would be equally contracted.In the earth frame the top would be contracted but not the bottom .

Post#23

Given: ...Ich's velocity figure is totally accurate.
....We start with a coordinate time and position measurement at the rear point on the track where it is equivalent to the rear wheel base.

...We take another measurement at the point where it is colocated with the topmost point of the front wheel (and base)

...From these two points we derive velocity for the track point and the wheel base.

...The distance traveled by the track is simply dx=dx_t

...for the wheel base it is dx-(wheel base...dx)=dx_b
...I think it is safe to say that geometrically dx_t=2 dx_b
...Using round geared wheels and geared track the forward motion of the base is \pix 2r(radius of wheel) per revolution. The top track must advance by twice this value to maintain continuity with the wheel base and gear teeth.
.If there is some explanation why this would or could not be true ;great, But keep in mind it would have to apply in the track frame equally.

Post #32

The ground has v=-.45 by some basic principles, and since the lower track is at rest wrt the ground it has v=-.45, too.
Now imagine a virtual vertical plane separating the rear part from the front part of the tank. Call it the middle plane.
Now there's an equation of continuity that says that, in any given timespan, as many track segments have to cross said plane from back to forth as in the other direction, lest the segments accumulate somewhere.From symmetry principles it is evident that v=0.45 for the upper track fulfills the continuity condition. It can be shown mathematically that this is the only solution. .

What is this continuity equation??
WHere is the foundation for this bold and bald assertion that his is the only solution to fulfill this undefined continuity equation??

What is the justification that simply having gearing would not satisfy his unique continuity criteria?
I*.e. with gears, of course, the same number of segments would pass in either direction unless the system decomposes.

.

Post #23
...I think it is safe to say that geometrically dx_t=2 dx_b

...Using round geared wheels and geared track the forward motion of the base is \pix 2r(radius of wheel) per revolution. The top track must advance by twice this value to maintain continuity with the wheel base and gear teeth.

Post #32
This is not entirely trivial, however.
For example, the segments all like to be Lorentz-contracted. If you have a fixed number of (well-fitting) segments and spin up the tank, this cannot be achieved. Either the track will break, or the segments all get stretched. You could also add more segments until the track fits again.

Ok, now we've established v_upper = 0.45 in the tank frame, and v_tank = 0.45 in the ground frame, we have that formula that tells us that v_upper in the ground frame is 0.74844.

If we observe the upper track, we see that it moves at v=0.74844, while the middle plane moves at v=0.45. We now invoke what has been dubbed the "closing speed" in recent threads. It is v1-v2=0.29844 for the upper track.
The closing speed for the lower track is 0-0.45 = -0.45.

Could you explain this to me why we are suddenly using gallilean addition here?

And what is the logical value or justification for using this figure in the ground frame where, whichever figure 0.9 or 0.7844 ,,you use, the top is defintiely moving faster than the bottom?

Post #32
Here's the point where some of you see the continuity equation violated, and claim that logic dictates both closing speeds be the same (up to the sign). It's easy to show how this is wrong.
How many segments ("n") do actually move from back to forth and otherwise in, say, 1 second?
Use some algebra to find that n = v/l * 1 second, where v is the closing speed and l the length of a segment.
The lower track is at rest in the ground frame. The're no relativity to be obeyed, and for the sake of simplicity we set the length of a segment in that frame to be 1 second. (Remember, c=1. If you want to use the usual dimensions: that means l = 1 lightsecond = ~300000 km.)
Then n_lower = 0.45/1 s = -0.45/s.

The upper segments are slower (lower absolute closing velocity), but contracted and thus more densely packed. From the Lorentz contraction formula, we get: l_upper = 0.6632 s.
And we find n_upper = 0.29844/0.6632 s = 0.45/s.

What is the supposed meaning of all of this.
If you posit gearing on both the front and back wheel this is all redundant as the reciprocal movement between top and bottom is guarenteed.
If on the other hand you posit a single geared wheel at the front then there is question whether this whole workup above would apply. If there is the possibility of slack through contraction then there is no guarantee that the velocity at the front which is being driven is going to be the same as at the back moving topside as it is free wheeling and would be determined by relative contraction and propagation of momentum.

It is also just one of many factors to be taken into account..

How is this supposed to show anyone wrong?? What is it supposed to prove that wasn't already acknowledged?? ANd how is it supposed to counter all the other factors and logics??

In either case this ignores my questions about the physical viability of the track given the difference in contraction between 1.0 on the bottom and .6632 on the top.

Post #36
There is the 1st P to consider also..

Post #36

Given your contraction figures which I am sure are accurate:

This would mean that not only the links were contracted but, if we assume gearing, then the number of links between wheels would be fixed and so the distance between the tops of the wheels would also have to be contracted relative to the ,bottom of the track, distance between the bottoms of the wheels. Yes??

WOuldn't you assume this would create intolerable stress on the wheels??

And wheelbase??

Would you maintain that this was a workable reality by the same criteria you applied to the tank frame??
.

Post #36 As far as I know the domain of applicability of the Addition of Velocities equation is limited to ;
independent inertial frames or objects.

a) The track as a whole or as segments would not seem to be inertial.
It is under constant acceleration through force.

b) The track is not independent. It is physically connected to both the tank and the ground.
I don't just mean in contact but that the physics of both frames have direct causal effects.

SO it would seem there is doubt if it would apply to this situation at all.

This would seem to then raise some doubt whether the derived figure can be taken at its normally , factual value , without further ocnsideration.

Post #47
It is limited to inertial frames. "Independent inertial frames" makes no sense, as I can't imagine what a dependent inertial frame would be.

Well what would you call the case we examining?

YOu have two systems, ground and tank that are independent in that they have a singular relative velocitywrt each other.
You then have a third system the track which is physically connected to both through applied force ,acceleration,and axle to tank, and has four different relative velocities wrt the other two systems.

Post #47Each segment is inertial while it's moving linearly.

"Physical connectedness" is no criteria for something being inertial or not. If it's moving with constant velocity (speed and direction), it is inertial. ...Period.

Does anyone here doubt that it is possible to have a rocket move from a point on the surface to a point a mile high at a constant coordinate speed and direction??
Or an elevator?

Is there anyone here who would say these cases would be inertial??

Is there anyone who will tell me this is not just flat out wrong?? If so I would like to herar it and learn.

Post #36
Given your contraction figures which I am sure are accurate:

This would mean that not only the links were contracted but, if we assume gearing, then the number of links between wheels would be fixed and so the distance between the tops of the wheels would also have to be contracted relative to the ,bottom of the track, distance between the bottoms of the wheels. Yes??

Post #47
No..
This is a splendid example of logic vs preconception. Try to check what you can really be sure of, and what not. For example, the bottoms (and tops) of the wheels are stationary in the tank frame. They are points - as opposed to events. You know that distances between stationary points are Lorentz contracted. Both by the same factor, of course.
By similar arguments you should know that the top segments undergo contraction wrt the bottom segments.
So where does your logic fail and turn into preconception?

There's a single answer in more than 99% of all cases where "logic" clashes with reality: You forgot the relativity of simultaneity.

Counting the number of segments between wheels contains an assumption concerning the simultaneity of spatially separated events.

SO here I am being told of my lack of valid logic because I didn't consider simultaneity.
Well that is true I didn't.

But wait a sec! Neither did Ich. Not any previous mention in any post and now having put forth another ad hominem claim ,he doesn't provide any demonstration whatsoever of how this relates to anything specifiic I said or the question at large.

Once again he does not address any specific point but simply makes a meaningless blanket assertion that assumes and implies that my logic is flawed and I am missing basic priciples without ever actually demonstrating this.

In this case even more absurd as he is accusing a failure that he himself also commited

Post #36

WOuldn't you assume this would create intolerable stress on the wheels??

And wheelbase??

Would you maintain that this was a workable reality by the same criteria you applied to the tank frame??

The above was not addressed which normal.

I pointed out to phyti that his logical base was essentially the same as Ich's but in another frame.
SO can you point out where Ich's basis or demonstration is any more compelling or valid than phyti's?
Or where I have erred in my thinking?
Thanks

 

[Passionflower]

Does anyone here doubt that it is possible to have a rocket move from a point on the surface to a point a mile high at a constant coordinate speed and direction??
Or an elevator?

Is there anyone here who would say these cases would be inertial??

Is there anyone who will tell me this is not just flat out wrong?? If so I would like to herar it and learn.

When the rocket fires its engine it is not traveling inertially, when the rocket engine is turned off it is traveling inertially.

Whether the rocket travels with a constant coordinate speed entirely depends on the chosen coordinate chart.

 

[matheinste]

Austin0,

Your error lies in assuming that the top track speed is twice the tank speed when viewed from the ground frame. It is not. the value is correctly arrived at using the relativistic velocity addition formula.

Until you accept this point, which has been explained several times, you will be unable to see how to relate frames to each other.

The difference between phyti's approach and Ich's approach is that ich is correct and phyti is wrong regarding the top track velocity relative to the ground.

Matheinste.

 

[Ich]

Great. In https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2814757&postcount=81", after a long and stagnant discussion, you confess that you didn't understand anything of what I wrote in this thread. And you ask the general public - rhetorically - a whole lot of concrete questions concerning my derivations. But didn't ask me a single one when I posted all this stuff.

I'm done with this.

 

[Ken Natton]

Possibly against all wisdom, I am going to butt my ore into this thread one more time. Not because I imagine for one moment that I can offer any resolution to the discussion, but just to see of there is any consensus on an issue that has been a surprise to me on this thread – this notion that the tank track is subject to any physical tension as a result of unequal length contraction.

It may well be that you are all going to tell me that it has no connection at all, but I have only just come across this notion known as the Ehrenfest paradox. A quick search of this specific forum shows up a large number of previous threads that have mentioned it, not a few of which refer to the Wikipedia article and its example of a circular train linked by elastic couplings. By that account, as the train accelerates and the individual carriages contract, the elastic couplings are stretched. The Wikipedia article mentions that this paradox remains an unresolved controversy among the people that, I certainly, would have supposed would know.

So, taking it back to Einstein’s measuring rod lying along the x-axis of the co-ordinate system and accelerated along the x axis. Surely it was never the relativity case that the rod is subject to any kind of compression? There is no rearrangement of the constituent molecules, or atoms or even subatomic particles of the rod. It is simply made to appear to have length contracted because of its relative deflection in spacetime. The observer sat on the rod still finds it to be exactly the same rod it always was.

I cannot explain the resolution of the paradox, but it seems clear to me that the individual carriages and all of the elastic couplings must be length contracted according to the appropriate formula. In the original case of the rigid disc, the whole system must be homogenous.

And whatever the appearance to the ground observer due to conflicting length contractions, the reality in the frame of the tank itself is that the peripheral scalar speed of the tank track is constant and no undue tension is caused.

 

[Austin0]

Austin0,

Your error lies in assuming that the top track speed is twice the tank speed when viewed from the ground frame. It is not. the value is correctly arrived at using the relativistic velocity addition formula.

Until you accept this point, which has been explained several times, you will be unable to see how to relate frames to each other.

The difference between phyti's approach and Ich's approach is that ich is correct and phyti is wrong regarding the top track velocity relative to the ground.

Matheinste.

Where did this come from. WHere did I ever state any quantitative speed for the top track?

I did logical analysis working explicitly with Ich's firgure of .7844c

I never anywhere did any analysis or attempted derivation of 0.9c.

I did mention that this would have problems too.

I did show reason for assuming that in the ground frame the distance would be twice the wheel base but drew no quatitative conclusions from this.

I never in any place said phyti's resolution was correct. In fact I specifically wrote him pointing out that he was using the same logical basis that Ich was, just using it in another frame.

My point wasn't that either one was right or wrong but rather that both solutions had problems and created situations which seemed to negate the basis of both view's logical premises:
i.e. " It must be this way or the tank won't work"

I am at a loss how you have misread the explicit meaning of what I have written.
Have somehow drawn a conclusion or reinterpretation that has no basis in what is actually there in black and white.
DO you have any awareness of recognized logical fallacies?

 

[Ich]

this notion that the tank track is subject to any physical tension as a result of unequal length contraction.

Not as a result of unequal length contraction. We're talking here essentially about the Ehrenfest paradox (which is solved, of course). If the track is moving in the tank frame, all its segments are shorter, but the number of segments is the same. So you have to do something about it. Which I described https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2810402&postcount=32".
It is not important for the rest of the problem, because we're going to fix the segments' length in the tank frame to an arbytrary (and irrelevant) number anyway.

 

[Austin0]

When the rocket fires its engine it is not traveling inertially, when the rocket engine is turned off it is traveling inertially. Whether the rocket travels with a constant coordinate speed entirely depends on the chosen coordinate chart.

This my point exactly. When under acceleration whether it is hovering underthrust in gravity or being accelerated upward at a constant speed it is not inertial.

 

[matheinste]

Where did this come from. WHere did I ever state any quantitative speed for the top track?

I did logical analysis working explicitly with Ich's firgure of .7844c

I never anywhere did any analysis or attempted derivation of 0.9c.

I did mention that this would have problems too.

I did show reason for assuming that in the ground frame the distance would be twice the wheel base but drew no quatitative conclusions from this.

I never in any place said phyti's resolution was correct. In fact I specifically wrote him pointing out that he was using the same logical basis that Ich was, just using it in another frame.

My point wasn't that either one was right or wrong but rather that both solutions had problems and created situations which seemed to negate the basis of both view's logical premises:
i.e. " It must be this way or the tank won't work"

I am at a loss how you have misread the explicit meaning of what I have written.
Have somehow drawn a conclusion or reinterpretation that has no basis in what is actually there in black and white.
DO you have any awareness of recognized logical fallacies?

My apopogies for any upset caused. I am finished here. Life's too short to peel mushrooms ( in the frame of reference in which I am at rest ).

Matheinste.

 

[Ken Natton]

Austin0, nobody’s logical premise is that ‘it must be this way or the tank won’t work.’ It is a perfectly valid point that the fact that the tank does work is a big clue to the reality that any explanation that requires impossible conditions must be wrong. But that is not the same holding that to be a logical premise. The only logical premise is that relativity as introduced to us all by Einstein is mathematically proven and supported by a wealth of experimental evidence. The true explanation of this problem lies within it.

Ich, you understand that I do not hold that there is any unequal length contraction, but I have demonstrated that my opinion is only based on the kind of supposition that Physics Forums frowns upon. I believe that it can be proven mathematically, I just can’t do it myself.

I confess that I don’t exactly understand how your post #32 resolves it, and whether you are saying that the track (or Einstein’s measuring rod) does or does not undergo some physical change. I am tantalised by your assertion that the Ehrenfest paradox is solved. That certainly does not appear to be what the Wikipedia article says, though the article is flagged as being one that is not up to standard. Can you refer me to an explanation of the resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox? Or do I just labour through all the existing threads here on Physics Forums in the hope of finding that explanation somewhere? I have the strongest feeling that the resolution of it is the same as the resolution to this problem.