EINSTEIN IDIOCIES: THE ROTATING DISK

On Jun 17, 9:33Â*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton (the cleverest Einsteinian): "If one has a disk in special
relativity, the geometry of its surface is Euclidean. Say it is ten
feet in diameter. That means that we can lay 10 foot long rulers
across a diameter. The circumference is pi x 10 feet, which is about
31 feet. That means that we traverse the full circumference by laying
31 rulers round the outer rim of the disk. What if this disk is in
rapid uniform rotation and we repeat the measurements? The same ten
rulers will measure the diameter. The motion of the disk is always
perpendicular to the rulers, so their length is unaffected. That is
not so for the rulers laid along the circumference. They lie in the
direction of rapid motion. As a result, they shorten and more are
needed to cover the full circumference of the disk. The upshot is that
we measure the circumference of the disk to be greater than 31 feet,
the Euclidean value. In other words, we find that the geometry of is
not Euclidean. The circumference of the disk is more than 2pi times
its radius. The significance of this thought experiment was great.
Through his principle of equivalence, Einstein had found that linear
acceleration produces a gravitational field. Now he found that another
sort of acceleration, rotation, produces geometry that is not
Euclidean."

In 1902, in "La Science et l'hypothèse", Henri Poincaré, in order to
justify non-Euclidean geometries, presented a parabole. Bidimensional
creatures live on a disk. The disk is heated under its center so that
the temperature is high at the center and decreases towards the
periphery. The creatures use rigid measuring rods in order to
determine the geometry of their world. They know nothing about the
heater and accordingly discover that the ratio of the circumference
and the diameter is greater than pi. The creatures conclude that
Euclidean geometry cannot be true on the disk.

Albert the Plagiarist and John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, are
forced to distort the concept of Divine Albert's Divine Length
Contraction (rulers do undergo length contraction but parts of the
disk covered by them do not) Â*in order to appropriate Poincaré's
result.

Don Howard and John Stachel are old members of Einstein criminal cult
and know how to lie but Walter Isaacson is still a naive new member
who "repeats the common mistake of claiming that the circumference of
the disk contracts, while the diameter does not":

http://journals.ucfv.ca/jhb/Volume_3...e_3_Howard.pdf
Don Howard: "In his discussion of Einstein’s “rotating disk� thought
experiment, an important step on the road to general relativity’s
implication of spatio-temporal curvature, Isaacson repeats the common
mistake of claiming that the circumference of the disk contracts,
while the diameter does not, yielding a ratio of circumference to
diameter less than π (p. 192). In fact, it is the yardstick used to
measure the circumference that contracts, yielding a circumference
seemingly larger than for the stationary disk and thus a ratio of
circumference to diameter greater than π. For a careful discussion,
see John Stachel, “The Rigidly Rotating Disk as the ‘Missing Link’ in
the History of General Relativity,� in Einstein and the History of
General Relativity, Don Howard and John Stachel, eds. (Boston:
Birkhäuser, 1989), 48-62."

In fact, naive new member Walter Isaacson has just made a valid
conclusion based on Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, just like
Ehrenfest did long time ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 28, 12:05Â*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 17, 9:33Â*am,PentchoValev wrote:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ity/index.html
John Norton (the cleverest Einsteinian): "If one has a disk in special
relativity, the geometry of its surface is Euclidean. Say it is ten
feet in diameter. That means that we can lay 10 foot long rulers
across a diameter. The circumference is pi x 10 feet, which is about
31 feet. That means that we traverse the full circumference by laying
31 rulers round the outer rim of the disk. What if this disk is in
rapid uniform rotation and we repeat the measurements? The same ten
rulers will measure the diameter. The motion of the disk is always
perpendicular to the rulers, so their length is unaffected. That is
not so for the rulers laid along the circumference. They lie in the
direction of rapid motion. As a result, they shorten and more are
needed to cover the full circumference of the disk. The upshot is that
we measure the circumference of the disk to be greater than 31 feet,
the Euclidean value. In other words, we find that the geometry of is
not Euclidean. The circumference of the disk is more than 2pi times
its radius. The significance of this thought experiment was great.
Through his principle of equivalence, Einstein had found that linear
acceleration produces a gravitational field. Now he found that another
sort of acceleration, rotation, produces geometry that is not
Euclidean."

In 1902, in "La Science et l'hypothèse", Henri Poincaré, in order to
justify non-Euclidean geometries, presented a parabole. Bidimensional
creatures live on a disk. The disk is heated under its center so that
the temperature is high at the center and decreases towards the
periphery. The creatures use rigid measuring rods in order to
determine the geometry of their world. They know nothing about the
heater and accordingly discover that the ratio of the circumference
and the diameter is greater than pi. The creatures conclude that
Euclidean geometry cannot be true on the disk.

Albert the Plagiarist and John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, are
forced to distort the concept of Divine Albert's Divine Length
Contraction (rulers do undergo length contraction but parts of the
disk covered by them do not) Â*in order to appropriate Poincaré's
result.

Don Howard and John Stachel are old members of Einstein criminal cult
and know how to lie but Walter Isaacson is still a naive new member
who "repeats the common mistake of claiming that the circumference of
the disk contracts, while the diameter does not":

http://journals.ucfv.ca/jhb/Volume_3...e_3_Howard.pdf
Don Howard: "In his discussion of Einstein’s “rotating disk� thought
experiment, an important step on the road to general relativity’s
implication of spatio-temporal curvature, Isaacson repeats the common
mistake of claiming that the circumference of the disk contracts,
while the diameter does not, yielding a ratio of circumference to
diameter less than π (p. 192). In fact, it is the yardstick used to
measure the circumference that contracts, yielding a circumference
seemingly larger than for the stationary disk and thus a ratio of
circumference to diameter greater than π. For a careful discussion,
see John Stachel, “The Rigidly Rotating Disk as the ‘Missing Link’ in
the History of General Relativity,� in Einstein and the History of
General Relativity, Don Howard and John Stachel, eds. (Boston:
Birkhäuser, 1989), 48-62."

In fact, naive new member Walter Isaacson has just made a valid
conclusion based on Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, just like
Ehrenfest did long time ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

The idiocy is getting "clearer":

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii.../rot.disc.html
"Ehrenfest raised this question: consider a rapidly rotating disc;
then its circumference should show (to an observer in the rest system)
a Lorentz contraction, according to the special relativity; but
there's no such contraction along the radial direction; then the
rotating disc cannot maintain its shape! This argument is fallacious,
because the special relativity holds only for inertial (Lorentzian)
systems. That is, the object which show a Lorentz contraction must be
in a state of free (non-constrained) motion in an inertial system. But
the circumference of the disc is certainly constrained, because it is
part of the whole disc. Thus, the objects to which Lorentz contraction
applies are rods placed along the circumference, not the circumference
of the disc itself! As the disc keeps its shape during the rotation,
if you count the number of rods (which schrink) along the
circumference, this number is larger than the number of rods along the
cicumference of the disc when it is at rest (relative to K)."

And if the interior of the disc is removed so that the disc is reduced
to a circular rod constituting the circumference, identical to and
covered by the sequence of "rods placed along the circumference"?

Einstein zombie world:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/E.../Einsteine.jpg
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/i...e_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 13, 2:11Â*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jun 28, 12:05Â*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





On Jun 17, 9:33Â*am,PentchoValev wrote:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/general_rela....
John Norton (the cleverest Einsteinian): "If one has a disk in special
relativity, the geometry of its surface is Euclidean. Say it is ten
feet in diameter. That means that we can lay 10 foot long rulers
across a diameter. The circumference is pi x 10 feet, which is about
31 feet. That means that we traverse the full circumference by laying
31 rulers round the outer rim of the disk. What if this disk is in
rapid uniform rotation and we repeat the measurements? The same ten
rulers will measure the diameter. The motion of the disk is always
perpendicular to the rulers, so their length is unaffected. That is
not so for the rulers laid along the circumference. They lie in the
direction of rapid motion. As a result, they shorten and more are
needed to cover the full circumference of the disk. The upshot is that
we measure the circumference of the disk to be greater than 31 feet,
the Euclidean value. In other words, we find that the geometry of is
not Euclidean. The circumference of the disk is more than 2pi times
its radius. The significance of this thought experiment was great.
Through his principle of equivalence, Einstein had found that linear
acceleration produces a gravitational field. Now he found that another
sort of acceleration, rotation, produces geometry that is not
Euclidean."

In 1902, in "La Science et l'hypothèse", Henri Poincaré, in order to
justify non-Euclidean geometries, presented a parabole. Bidimensional
creatures live on a disk. The disk is heated under its center so that
the temperature is high at the center and decreases towards the
periphery. The creatures use rigid measuring rods in order to
determine the geometry of their world. They know nothing about the
heater and accordingly discover that the ratio of the circumference
and the diameter is greater than pi. The creatures conclude that
Euclidean geometry cannot be true on the disk.

Albert the Plagiarist and John Norton, the cleverest Einsteinian, are
forced to distort the concept of Divine Albert's Divine Length
Contraction (rulers do undergo length contraction but parts of the
disk covered by them do not) Â*in order to appropriate Poincaré's
result.

Don Howard and John Stachel are old members of Einstein criminal cult
and know how to lie but Walter Isaacson is still a naive new member
who "repeats the common mistake of claiming that the circumference of
the disk contracts, while the diameter does not":

http://journals.ucfv.ca/jhb/Volume_3...e_3_Howard.pdf
Don Howard: "In his discussion of Einstein’s “rotating disk� thought
experiment, an important step on the road to general relativity’s
implication of spatio-temporal curvature, Isaacson repeats the common
mistake of claiming that the circumference of the disk contracts,
while the diameter does not, yielding a ratio of circumference to
diameter less than π (p. 192). In fact, it is the yardstick used to
measure the circumference that contracts, yielding a circumference
seemingly larger than for the stationary disk and thus a ratio of
circumference to diameter greater than π. For a careful discussion,
see John Stachel, “The Rigidly Rotating Disk as the ‘Missing Link’ in
the History of General Relativity,� in Einstein and the History of
General Relativity, Don Howard and John Stachel, eds. (Boston:
Birkhäuser, 1989), 48-62."

In fact, naive new member Walter Isaacson has just made a valid
conclusion based on Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, just like
Ehrenfest did long time ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox

The idiocy is getting "clearer":

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii.../rot.disc.html
"Ehrenfest raised this question: consider a rapidly rotating disc;
then its circumference should show (to an observer in the rest system)
a Lorentz contraction, according to the special relativity; but
there's no such contraction along the radial direction; then the
rotating disc cannot maintain its shape! This argument is fallacious,
because the special relativity holds only for inertial (Lorentzian)
systems. That is, the object which show a Lorentz contraction must be
in a state of free (non-constrained) motion in an inertial system. But
the circumference of the disc is certainly constrained, because it is
part of the whole disc. Thus, the objects to which Lorentz contraction
applies are rods placed along the circumference, not the circumference
of the disc itself! As the disc keeps its shape during the rotation,
if you count the number of rods (which schrink) along the
circumference, this number is larger than the number of rods along the
cicumference of the disc when it is at rest (relative to K)."

And if the interior of the disc is removed so that the disc is reduced
to a circular rod constituting the circumference, identical to and
covered by the sequence of "rods placed along the circumference"?

Einstein zombie world:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"http://www.bnl.gov/community/Tours/EinsteinPics/Einsteine.jpghttp://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htmhttp://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-7/images/devine_einstein.mp3

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Lorentz contraction of space

No Flat Atoms

No Flat Physics

MItch Raemsch