TV Show

[John doe]

As for changing variables changing an equation. I will give you an example.
How far will light travel in 1 year?

[ME]

May I ask what the fraction was?

Yes you may, but I already showed the answer - which you only need to rework to get some fraction.

"How far will light travel in 1 year" - it's a defined constant, but I suspect you have some trick in mind?

[John doe]

The short answer is its all relative according to Einstein. Gravity of the planet of the observer. Gravity of the pull of the planets and stars the light passes by, the medium it passes through vacuum, air and water all have differing effects on the distance light travels in 1 year. So my disagreement isn't that light travels x distance in a vacuum. I agree with that (to an outside observer on a specific planet yes) So if you discount all of theses variables then yes the speed of light is a constant. That's like me saying that I drive a constant speed to work. (The speed limit) this can be true if I don't exceed the speed limit. But in reality the speed limit changes numerous times on my way to and from work so even though what I said was a true statement the speed limit changes sand that makes my speed variable and not a constant. My argument is with the definition that light is in any way a constant yes it's constant in - specific time at one specific place under very specific conditions. Change any of these variables and you essentially change the speed of light. Just one examples.

[John doe]

We could assume a constant acceleration, for the sake of simplicity;
Velocity would constantly increase over time, as that's what acceleration is;
This means: as long as there is an acceleration the velocity can not be constant;



Ah well I tried. Signing off now....
Perhaps some TV-show is able to do a better job.


This statement is not necessarily true.

[ME]

So many questions... :-)
Is light still the same light or a processed copy when traveling through some medium; and wouldn't the speed of light be a mix-up of vacuum-travel and the time it takes to be absorbed and re-emitted.
What is the distance when light hits a perfect mirror half a lightyear away - at what angle do we send our signal effecting in some perfect recapture?
What use is such experiment anyway when during such experiment there's a slight tectonic plate shift?

This statement is not necessarily true.

That happens when combining different points of views.
I think each statement (I made a few there, while you added one) in their combination is still acceptably true. As I'm not that powerful it's possible my statements are not entirely forming an universal truth from all perspectives. So I don't see the issue.

[John doe]

Constant acceleration does not necessarily produce an increase in velocity...

[John doe]

The point is all points of view are equally true and equally valid. and I am not talking about anomalies like shifts in plate tectonics.

As for your question concerning a perfect mirror. If a photon of light hits a perfect mirror at exactly 90 degrees to the surface perpendicular and reflects back. Do I see the same photon or a replica? In order for it to be the same photon it's speed would have to be 0 at some point and we know that is impossible.

[ME]

Constant acceleration does not necessarily produce an increase in velocity...

It should by definition.

But (perhaps this is what you mean) gravitational acceleration results in a force*, this force could be used in several ways. One of them is counteracting friction, another one could be applied to the wheel. When this wheel experiences a fraction of this force, it would experience torque and thus get a rotational acceleration; This last acceleration will by definition result in an increase in velocity, while the first acceleration only result in force: they are separate entities but having a causal relation.

*)Actually it should be a gravitational force interaction between two masses, only resulting in a locally constant acceleration... Normally this is just an issue of semantics, but in this case relevant. Because when an object hits ground, its acceleration of motion (which happens to be close to the gravitational acceleration) stops (by definition), but the gravitational force remains.

[John doe]

Yes!
Changing the definition, changes the equation and thus the end result.
Or as I like to say, in order to get the right answer you have to have the right question (equation). How you define your variables affects the equation and thus the answer you get.

[ME]

The definitions are just that, and proofed by many measurements and calculations while applicable for wheel-sized environments:
Physics: F = G*(M*m)/(r^2) = m*g
Kinetics: s[t]=(0.5*a*t+v[0])*t+s[0], v[t]=a*t+v[0]
Vector Math example: x=n*cos(alpha), y=n*sin(alpha)
etc.
It's not the arbitrary combination of arbitrary formula, it's the science of applying the right formula for the given situation.

Therefore I am able to conclude all wheels accelerated slower than the effect of 1 G.
The problem however is the accuracy of observation:

Let's say the maximum velocity of the wheel is "50 RPM".
Eight bangs were heard during a single rotation (at this moment I don't know this observation applies for all wheels)
Thus there was a "bang-frequency" of 6.67 Hz or 400 "bangs" per minute.
How accurate would such measurement be - counting at about 7 Hz might be difficult even when scoring on paper.
Would they conclude some constant speed at 380 bangs/minute (tau=3: 95.0%) or at 397 bangs/minute (tau=5: 99.3 %).
For the reported "two or three" rotations that would take between 16 or 24 "bangs" - being another kind of measurement which would be interesting. Perhaps they simply just looked and counted rotation being below 1 Hz, but still having about the same inaccuracy in determining the moment of coasting.

So many questions...

[John doe]

I would say this loss is likely due to friction.