Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 5 Apr 2010 18:24 On Apr 5, 5:03 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 5, 5:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 4:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 3:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 5 Apr, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:24 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > But you don't explain Peter. Quite often, you don't even know what I'm > > > > > > > asking. And even when you do, you generally just make assertions - > > > > > > > like the one about the ladder fitting in the barn, and when I ask > > > > > > > further questions about it, you don't understand what I mean by words > > > > > > > like "real". And by the looks of it, we're also approaching an > > > > > > > argument about the meaning of "the sky" and "the colour". > > > > > > > > Even if you do have some understanding Peter, you are very poor at > > > > > > > communicating it, and despite ostensibly speaking English you appear > > > > > > > to have no comprehension of fairly simple questions. And it's not just > > > > > > > you. Even Paul Draper, who claims to be a teacher for heavens sake, is > > > > > > > just as bad. > > > > > > > :>) > > > > > > > This is in the camp of "Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with me, > > > > > > so if I'm not understanding it properly, it must be your fault." > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > It does not occur to you, apparently, that effective learning and > > > > > > teaching does commonly involve concessions and compromises for the > > > > > > sake of effective communication by both parties. Usually, by the way, > > > > > > it is the student who makes the most concessions, because it is the > > > > > > student that is desiring the most change in the state and contents of > > > > > > his mind. > > > > > > I'm happy to make concessions, but I have to be able to ask questions > > > > > and get meaningful answers. The ladder in the barn is a prime example. > > > > > I'm told "the ladder contracts to fit in the barn". > > > > > It contracts to fit the barn in the rest frame of the barn, which is > > > > why the ladder makes no marks on the barn doors when the doors are > > > > shut at the same time. In the rest frame of the ladder, the ladder > > > > does not contract and indeed does not fit inside the barn at all. In > > > > the rest frame of the ladder, the reason why there are no marks on the > > > > barn doors when they are shut is that they were not shut at the same > > > > time in this frame. > > > > If you can't be bothered to read Einstein's relativity > > > Ah, so you don't recognize the statements above as being consistent > > with relativity? > > I'm not surprised. You've not really understood much about relativity > > from the get-go. > > Perhaps it only appears in the 1905 paper. It appears you don't know where it comes from. > Quacks > and storytellers seem quite fond of that paper to the > exclusion of latter work that uses Minkowski > space instead of Lorentz's ether. > > <<pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a > pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though > the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. > Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints > on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. > Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition > every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new > facts and insights.>>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > Sue... > > > > > > perhaps you will find time to read the theory you > > > are mangling. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory > > > > > > Sue... > >
From: Peter Webb on 5 Apr 2010 19:18 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:16538a2e-32d6-40e2-b931-4ff683dba354(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On Apr 5, 9:54 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:ed04e40a-c559-480f-872c-bc14932105b4(a)z6g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 5, 1:19 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:b0d31ce6-409d-4e59-9940-e3b780c70a95(a)k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 4, 8:26 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >news:8185f44e-a0bb-4c3d-906e-117c1616aaf6(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > On Apr 4, 10:28 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > or whether the relativistic speeds cause a sort of > > > > > lensing effect (i.e. like putting a prism in front of one's eyes, > > > > > the > > > > > "contraction" affects only the person with the prism in front of > > > > > their > > > > > eyes) that makes everything *appear* contracted, but there is > > > > > actually > > > > > no measurable change at all in the rest of the universe. > > > > ================== > > > > > No, its not an optical illusion, for the 8 billionth time. > > > > > The travelling twin really is younger. > > > > > The ladder really does fit inside the barn. > > > > In spite of recent cautions not to appeal to authority, > > > I think you will find some important contributors > > > to Einstein's relativity are diametrically opposed > > > to you view. > > > > ________________________________________ > > > OK, name one physicist who believes that the travelling twin would not > > > return younger. > > ==================== > > > Nearly all and you just snipped the reason why. > > > _____________________________________ > > Name one. > > "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something > he can learn in no other way." > --Mark Twain > > << [C.S.] Unnikrishnan�s arguments suggest > that the resolution of the twin paradox ... > > ________________________________ > I might point out that neither Unnikrishna or Gron argue that the > travelling > twin would not be younger. On the contrary, they accept this is true, but > provide different explanations for it. > > You will not find a single physicist who believes that the travelling twin > will not return younger, as this has been directly tested on many > occasions. > It is an observed fact. > > Hence I repeat my challenge: "OK, name one physicist who believes that the > travelling twin would not return younger." Scientists don't state their "beliefs". They work with experimental evidence and the evidence that would support your position is faulty. ______________________________ Funny. You said that "nearly all" physicists believe the travelling twin would not return younger than the stay at home twin. When repeatedly asked to name a *single* physicist who holds this opinion, you cannot name any. Q: When did "almost all" become "none"? A: When you were asked for evidence. ROFL
From: Ste on 5 Apr 2010 19:33 On 5 Apr, 21:59, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 abr, 16:47, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 5 Apr, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm happy to make concessions, but I have to be able to ask questions > > and get meaningful answers. The ladder in the barn is a prime example. > > I'm told "the ladder contracts to fit in the barn". And I ask "so a > > person riding the ladder would see the barn expand", and the answer > > comes back "no, no, the person riding the ladder would see the barn > > *contract*". So I say, "well clearly in the latter case the ladder > > cannot possibly fit with both doors shut, so it must be a visual > > effect". "No, no" comes the reply, "the ladder *really* does fit > > according to a person standing in the barn, and it *really* doesn't > > fit according to the person riding the ladder". And I say, "well, it > > can't do both at once", and the reply that is merely asserted in > > response is "well, it does!". > > > And that sums up thousands of words in probably hundreds of posts > > exchanged between me and a quite a few posters on the ladder and barn > > paradox. It always comes back to a plain assertion that "this is how > > it works", but there is no attempt to explain *why*, or any attempt to > > show how a mere visual explanation would not suffice for some or all > > of the observed effects. > > There are plenty of places where this so called "paradox" is > explained. For instance,http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Relativ/polebarn.html > > The relevant part is that the fact that two events are simultaneous in > one frame of reference does not imply that they are simultaneous as > seen by an observer moving at a relativistic speed with respect to > that frame. As far as I'm concerned Miguel, I already understand the paradox. Even the page you reference says quite clearly: "From the pole point of view, the front gate closes just as the back of the pole enters. The surprising result is that the back gate is seen to close earlier from the pole framework, before the front of the pole reaches it. The gate closings are not simultaneous, and they permit the pole to pass through without hitting either gate." As it says, the simple explanation is that the gates don't close at the same time according to the pole, and hence the pole sails straight through.
From: Ste on 5 Apr 2010 19:41 On 5 Apr, 22:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 3:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm happy to make concessions, but I have to be able to ask questions > > and get meaningful answers. The ladder in the barn is a prime example. > > I'm told "the ladder contracts to fit in the barn". > > It contracts to fit the barn in the rest frame of the barn, which is > why the ladder makes no marks on the barn doors when the doors are > shut at the same time. In the rest frame of the ladder, the ladder > does not contract and indeed does not fit inside the barn at all. In > the rest frame of the ladder, the reason why there are no marks on the > barn doors when they are shut is that they were not shut at the same > time in this frame. This logic is easily defeated Paul, because if we contracted the ladder's length *just* enough so that it marked the door in the barn frame (in other words, the ladder has contracted just enough to manage an interference fit with both doors shut), then this cannot be accounted for in the ladder frame (because, in the ladder frame, if the ladder is *even larger* relative to the barn than when it started, then the ladder could not possibly mark the doors in the same way).
From: Sue... on 5 Apr 2010 19:44
On Apr 5, 6:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 5:03 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 5:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 4:32 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 5, 3:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 5 Apr, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:24 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > But you don't explain Peter. Quite often, you don't even know what I'm > > > > > > > > asking. And even when you do, you generally just make assertions - > > > > > > > > like the one about the ladder fitting in the barn, and when I ask > > > > > > > > further questions about it, you don't understand what I mean by words > > > > > > > > like "real". And by the looks of it, we're also approaching an > > > > > > > > argument about the meaning of "the sky" and "the colour". > > > > > > > > > Even if you do have some understanding Peter, you are very poor at > > > > > > > > communicating it, and despite ostensibly speaking English you appear > > > > > > > > to have no comprehension of fairly simple questions. And it's not just > > > > > > > > you. Even Paul Draper, who claims to be a teacher for heavens sake, is > > > > > > > > just as bad. > > > > > > > > :>) > > > > > > > > This is in the camp of "Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with me, > > > > > > > so if I'm not understanding it properly, it must be your fault." > > > > > > > Indeed. > > > > > > > > It does not occur to you, apparently, that effective learning and > > > > > > > teaching does commonly involve concessions and compromises for the > > > > > > > sake of effective communication by both parties. Usually, by the way, > > > > > > > it is the student who makes the most concessions, because it is the > > > > > > > student that is desiring the most change in the state and contents of > > > > > > > his mind. > > > > > > > I'm happy to make concessions, but I have to be able to ask questions > > > > > > and get meaningful answers. The ladder in the barn is a prime example. > > > > > > I'm told "the ladder contracts to fit in the barn". > > > > > > It contracts to fit the barn in the rest frame of the barn, which is > > > > > why the ladder makes no marks on the barn doors when the doors are > > > > > shut at the same time. In the rest frame of the ladder, the ladder > > > > > does not contract and indeed does not fit inside the barn at all. In > > > > > the rest frame of the ladder, the reason why there are no marks on the > > > > > barn doors when they are shut is that they were not shut at the same > > > > > time in this frame. > > > > > If you can't be bothered to read Einstein's relativity > > > > Ah, so you don't recognize the statements above as being consistent > > > with relativity? > > > I'm not surprised. You've not really understood much about relativity > > > from the get-go. ================= > > Perhaps it only appears in the 1905 paper. > > It appears you don't know where it comes from. The 1920 paper *judges* from another frame and has equations for a light path delay so indeed, I don't know where it comes from, if not from Lorentz's ether theory. ??? <<In 1907 Einstein criticized the "ad hoc" character of Lorentz's contraction hypothesis in his theory of electrons, because according to him it was only invented to rescue the hypothesis of an immobile ether. Einstein thought it necessary to replace Lorentz's theory of electrons by assuming that Lorentz's "local time" can simply be called "time", and he stated that the immobile ether as the theoretical fundament of electrodynamics was unsatisfactory.>> <<Minkowski ironically said that for Lorentz the contraction hypothesis is only a "gift from above". And although Lorentz's hypothesis is "completely equivalent with the new concept of space and time", Minkowski held that it becomes much more comprehensible in the framework of the new spacetime physics.>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory If you can't parse the words then read the maths. The placement of imaginary operators is unambiguous. Sue... > > > Quacks > > and storytellers seem quite fond of that paper to the > > exclusion of latter work that uses Minkowski > > space instead of Lorentz's ether. > > > <<pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first edition of a > > pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though > > the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. > > Even books with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints > > on every page may be reprinted as is, over and over. > > Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition > > every few years because of the rapid accumulation of new > > facts and insights.>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > > Sue... > > > > > perhaps you will find time to read the theory you > > > > are mangling. > > > > > > Sue... > > |