<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Geek or Dork?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/</link>
	<description>The Big Questions &#124; Tackling the Problems of Philosophy with Ideas from Mathematics, Economics, and Physics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:01:21 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Neil</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1999</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:54:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1999</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a dork still waiting for that d&#039;oh palm slap moment.  I cannot get past the assertion that we can ignore the non-inertial frame.  The passengers of the train &quot;know&quot; that it is they who are moving in a circle and not the tracks by the fact that they expeience the orthogonal acceleration.

I have long puzzled over a similar non-inertial frame paradox--a version of the twin paradox. Isolate two caesium clocks from the outside environment and send one on a one-G roundtrip to the nearest star.  According to the Lorentz calculation, the travelling clock shows far less elapsed time upon reuniting.  My question--how did the travelling clock &quot;know&quot; it was the travelling clock so it can show less elapsed time? Both clocks were in a sealed one-G environment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a dork still waiting for that d&#8217;oh palm slap moment.  I cannot get past the assertion that we can ignore the non-inertial frame.  The passengers of the train &#8220;know&#8221; that it is they who are moving in a circle and not the tracks by the fact that they expeience the orthogonal acceleration.</p>
<p>I have long puzzled over a similar non-inertial frame paradox&#8211;a version of the twin paradox. Isolate two caesium clocks from the outside environment and send one on a one-G roundtrip to the nearest star.  According to the Lorentz calculation, the travelling clock shows far less elapsed time upon reuniting.  My question&#8211;how did the travelling clock &#8220;know&#8221; it was the travelling clock so it can show less elapsed time? Both clocks were in a sealed one-G environment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1989</link>
		<dc:creator>dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:37:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1989</guid>
		<description>just because you see something shrink doesnt mean it has actually shrunk.
i dont understand the shrinking myself. is it like the doppler effect for light?
who would ride a train that just went in a circle, anyway?
dork. ;]

@dave dont worry about your relative intelligence to these geeks. i just imagine that im stationary and they are all on a train that is moving around a circular track. =]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>just because you see something shrink doesnt mean it has actually shrunk.<br />
i dont understand the shrinking myself. is it like the doppler effect for light?<br />
who would ride a train that just went in a circle, anyway?<br />
dork. ;]</p>
<p>@dave dont worry about your relative intelligence to these geeks. i just imagine that im stationary and they are all on a train that is moving around a circular track. =]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Douglas Colkitt</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1983</link>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Colkitt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:26:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1983</guid>
		<description>Also as for the observer in the center, here&#039;s the most elegant way I can think of to explain. 

Instead of thinking of a circle, let&#039;s think on a regulat N-Gon with a seperate car travelling along each side. (I think a square&#039;s conceptually easiest). The observer on each side on the N-Gon is a inertial reference frame relative to the track, because he is travelling in a straight line correponding to the side he&#039;s on. 

The both the observer on the car and the observer on the track will observe the other one shrinking in length relative to the other one. This is nothing new, it&#039;s the classic relatively scenario of two spaceships passing each other in space and both saying that the other one&#039;s meter sticks are too short.

Now let&#039;s figure out for the observer in the center what the distance is between each of the space ships on each side. If the car and polygon side are the same length when both are at rest a track-stationary observer will see the cars shorten more and more as it they approach the speed of light.

For simplicity sake let&#039;s say each car has dillated to half the length of the side of the track it&#039;s on. This can be represented by circumscribing a smaller N-gon inside the N-gon where the middle of each side forms the new points. Now if you start with a square you have just shurnk by a lot, but as you go to an Octogon the dilatted train is almost as big as the original tracks. As N -&gt; Infinity, the size of the dilatted train (or circumscribed N-Gon) approaches the size of the original N-gon, which is what you get when you have a circle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also as for the observer in the center, here&#8217;s the most elegant way I can think of to explain. </p>
<p>Instead of thinking of a circle, let&#8217;s think on a regulat N-Gon with a seperate car travelling along each side. (I think a square&#8217;s conceptually easiest). The observer on each side on the N-Gon is a inertial reference frame relative to the track, because he is travelling in a straight line correponding to the side he&#8217;s on. </p>
<p>The both the observer on the car and the observer on the track will observe the other one shrinking in length relative to the other one. This is nothing new, it&#8217;s the classic relatively scenario of two spaceships passing each other in space and both saying that the other one&#8217;s meter sticks are too short.</p>
<p>Now let&#8217;s figure out for the observer in the center what the distance is between each of the space ships on each side. If the car and polygon side are the same length when both are at rest a track-stationary observer will see the cars shorten more and more as it they approach the speed of light.</p>
<p>For simplicity sake let&#8217;s say each car has dillated to half the length of the side of the track it&#8217;s on. This can be represented by circumscribing a smaller N-gon inside the N-gon where the middle of each side forms the new points. Now if you start with a square you have just shurnk by a lot, but as you go to an Octogon the dilatted train is almost as big as the original tracks. As N -&gt; Infinity, the size of the dilatted train (or circumscribed N-Gon) approaches the size of the original N-gon, which is what you get when you have a circle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Douglas Colkitt</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1982</link>
		<dc:creator>Douglas Colkitt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:08:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1982</guid>
		<description>@AIV

Yes car 181 is moving relative to my inertial reference frame. If you&#039;re talking about the rotating reference frame then it is stationary. But remember a rotational reference frame is not inertial, ie it is accelerating. Hence the reason why someone on a Tilt-A-Whirl feels centripetal force.

The easiest way to think about this problem is to think about the train car&#039;s instantenous inertial frame. That is to do the calculations assuming each car on the train continues to move with the same velocity and no acceleration. The inertial vector for any given car is the tangent of the circle, therefore every car has a different inertial frame, and the further cars are away from each other the greater the difference between their inertial frames become.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@AIV</p>
<p>Yes car 181 is moving relative to my inertial reference frame. If you&#8217;re talking about the rotating reference frame then it is stationary. But remember a rotational reference frame is not inertial, ie it is accelerating. Hence the reason why someone on a Tilt-A-Whirl feels centripetal force.</p>
<p>The easiest way to think about this problem is to think about the train car&#8217;s instantenous inertial frame. That is to do the calculations assuming each car on the train continues to move with the same velocity and no acceleration. The inertial vector for any given car is the tangent of the circle, therefore every car has a different inertial frame, and the further cars are away from each other the greater the difference between their inertial frames become.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al V.</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1977</link>
		<dc:creator>Al V.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1977</guid>
		<description>@Douglas Colkitt, if you are in a car of the train, none of the cars are moving relative to you, are they?  If I&#039;m in car 1, car 181 is directly opposite me across the circle, and stays there.  Thus, I would think the other cars are stationary relative to me.

I think, although it doesn&#039;t make logical sense, that GregS is right.  If I&#039;m on the train, the tracks will appear shortened in the direction they are traveling relative to me, but since the radius is perpendicular to my direction of travel, the radius would not change.  It&#039;s hard for me to visualize, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Douglas Colkitt, if you are in a car of the train, none of the cars are moving relative to you, are they?  If I&#8217;m in car 1, car 181 is directly opposite me across the circle, and stays there.  Thus, I would think the other cars are stationary relative to me.</p>
<p>I think, although it doesn&#8217;t make logical sense, that GregS is right.  If I&#8217;m on the train, the tracks will appear shortened in the direction they are traveling relative to me, but since the radius is perpendicular to my direction of travel, the radius would not change.  It&#8217;s hard for me to visualize, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GregS</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1976</link>
		<dc:creator>GregS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:41:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1976</guid>
		<description>It seems that the radius of the track would not contract, but the circumference would. (Incidentally, I&#039;ve found out that this problem is called &quot;Ehrenfest&#039;s Paradox&quot;.) I convinced myself I had the answer when realizing that the radius doesn&#039;t change, but that I didn&#039;t have the real answer because the circumference DOES change.
The thing that usually resolves this type of paradox is the realization that &quot;things which are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another frame.&quot; Maybe I&#039;m missing something, but I don&#039;t see how that saves us. I&#039;d be pleased to see Professor Landsburg&#039;s answer after this thread has played out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems that the radius of the track would not contract, but the circumference would. (Incidentally, I&#8217;ve found out that this problem is called &#8220;Ehrenfest&#8217;s Paradox&#8221;.) I convinced myself I had the answer when realizing that the radius doesn&#8217;t change, but that I didn&#8217;t have the real answer because the circumference DOES change.<br />
The thing that usually resolves this type of paradox is the realization that &#8220;things which are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another frame.&#8221; Maybe I&#8217;m missing something, but I don&#8217;t see how that saves us. I&#8217;d be pleased to see Professor Landsburg&#8217;s answer after this thread has played out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neverfox</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1975</link>
		<dc:creator>Neverfox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:12:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1975</guid>
		<description>Are you referring to the fallacy described &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker17.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you referring to the fallacy described <a href="http://www.wbabin.net/science/ricker17.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1974</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:27:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1974</guid>
		<description>Does the train get thinner rather than shorter?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does the train get thinner rather than shorter?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Z</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1973</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Z</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:21:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1973</guid>
		<description>If you&#039;re observing from the center of the circular track, the train is moving slower for you than for the passengers on the train.  Like riding the inside of a carousel vs. the outside.  The passengers would also have a horizon reference whereas the observer wouldn&#039;t.

I&#039;m still sorting this.  I&#039;m I on the right track?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you&#8217;re observing from the center of the circular track, the train is moving slower for you than for the passengers on the train.  Like riding the inside of a carousel vs. the outside.  The passengers would also have a horizon reference whereas the observer wouldn&#8217;t.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m still sorting this.  I&#8217;m I on the right track?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/01/22/geek-or-dork/comment-page-1/#comment-1972</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:16:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thebigquestions.com/?p=295#comment-1972</guid>
		<description>I somehow missed the part about the front of the train being connected to the caboose.  And now the problem seems more complex. Could the answer somehow lie in the fact that people can view different parts of the track At different times by rotating their heads?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I somehow missed the part about the front of the train being connected to the caboose.  And now the problem seems more complex. Could the answer somehow lie in the fact that people can view different parts of the track At different times by rotating their heads?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

