Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Le_pi=C3=A8ge_parfait_=28the_perfect_trap=29?=
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2024 08:55:50 +0200
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <lg3pnhF8fpmU5@mid.individual.net>
References: <FER4K03RCuXsBiIlfVNSgR0vilQ@jntp> <v71c86$a0te$1@dont-email.me>
 <fCidXYmBeggYm31OO1-5v64V0S8@jntp> <v736bn$mo0c$1@dont-email.me>
 <yX3K1wOobcIp1KzCuRuRL0Htcvg@jntp> <v73otr$ptku$1@dont-email.me>
 <ch2jfWaArdOfK3yzPPitxq9HA-A@jntp> <v75ner$1828i$3@dont-email.me>
 <Bd8mOA-8nINExuba8PnEg4CG9rI@jntp> <v76fvs$1d5jc$1@dont-email.me>
 <y2JkxT04PJ9pNpvNVb0oXaWVKOw@jntp> <v76i7r$1d5jc$3@dont-email.me>
 <lfp9aaFkr1mU2@mid.individual.net> <v78dem$1r5au$1@dont-email.me>
 <lfrrnfF22urU5@mid.individual.net> <v7bkir$2h9g3$1@dont-email.me>
 <lfusn3FfohpU8@mid.individual.net> <v7den4$2sqhj$4@dont-email.me>
 <lg12vgFq3poU7@mid.individual.net> <v7gg2n$3hi7e$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net vnkwi9pl3NeEibAJZq5nYgrU9XmWWW9OlwthGIWpVCIiCn+pZX
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8PvUirLq74OKem/mnqXwZ/iJwN4= sha256:LB0ZTmqyZx3CzcOttQAIBOkT5k+z0wsMhfiTwdDajSI=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <v7gg2n$3hi7e$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4104

Am Samstag000020, 20.07.2024 um 16:03 schrieb Python:
> Le 20/07/2024 à 08:15, Thomas Heger a écrit :
>> Am Freitag000019, 19.07.2024 um 12:21 schrieb Python:
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' did not cover 
>>>> acceleration.
>>>>
>>>> ('acceleration' occured only in connection with electrons)
>>>>
>>>> This went as far as this:
>>>>
>>>> Einstein wrote, that because something is valid for movement along a 
>>>> streight line, it must be valid for any polygonal line, too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that was nonsense (actually funny nonsense), because that 
>>>> 'something' was streigth lateral motion with constant velocity.
>>>>
>>>> Now it is not possible at all, to move with constant velocity along 
>>>> a polygonal line, because that would cause infinite acceleration in 
>>>> the corners.
>>>
>>> And you pretend to be an engineer... LOL !
>>>
>> Well, at least I have a diploma and am allowed to use the academic 
>> degree 'Dipl. Ing.'.
>>
>> But anyhow:
>>
>> would you really allow constant velocity along 'any polygonal line'??????
>>
>> To me this is blatant nonsense, because acceleration depends on the 
>> radius of curvature of the path and in a sharp corner with zero radius 
>> the acceleration would be infinite.
> 
> 
> You are a failure of the German Education System clearly. You shouldn't
> in no way got a diploma in engineering.

???

Sideways movement causes acceleration and the rate of sideways change of 
the path is relevant for the amount of acceleration of the object 
following a cuirved path.

The easiest case is circular motion, which causes the centrifugal 
acceleration outwards in a rotating drum.

This rotating drum I take as symbolic equivalence for the sideways 
acceleration needed, to bring the object into a path sideways from 
inertial motion.

But the speed of the circumference of a rotating drum must be equal to 
the assumed contant speed of our inertial observer (or any other object 
moving with constant velocity v), because we had CONSTANT speed as an 
assumption.

Smaller drums need higher omegas (rotations per time unit), because we 
have the requirement for a constant velocity along the path of the object.

Now we have a sharp corner. That is equal to a drum with zero diameter, 
because the radius of curvature is zero at a sharp corner.

Now the equivalent drum had to ratotate with infinite omega, which would 
cause infinite acceleration upon its content.

As this is not possible, we cannot allow sharp corners to be passed with 
constant non-zero speed.

TH