Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 5 Apr 2010 20:45 On Apr 5, 8:15 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [...] ================ > Now, would you say that this explanation appears to suffice for at > least *some* of what is observed in SR? Special relativity resolves an apparent conflict with the principle of relativity and the constant speed of light when Newton's inertial light corpuscles are assumed. Could you show us how that fits into what I just snipped? It went waaaay over my head. Sue... > > > I want to > > emphasize that this is observational reality, even if you are stymied > > to explain how it can be, given your presently held concept sets about > > how nature works. > > I think the explanation I've just given in the paragraph above > suffices. I'm not stymied by it. I'm just not blown away by it - the > effects seem quite straightforward to me, but every time I offer that > explanation, posters here say the explanation is inadequate and faulty.
From: Ste on 5 Apr 2010 21:25 On 6 Apr, 01:38, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 abr, 19:33, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > That is totally correct. It means the paradox is not a paradox at all, > since events that are simultaneous on one frame of reference (the > barn) are not simultaneous on the other frame of reference (the one of > the pole). Piece of cake.... Indeed, except that the lack of simultaneity here is a *visual* effect. And that's always where the monacles fall into the drinking glasses.
From: Inertial on 5 Apr 2010 21:48 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f505fbb1-c634-4cde-89cd-787d3274f7c4(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > On 6 Apr, 01:38, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5 abr, 19:33, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> That is totally correct. It means the paradox is not a paradox at all, >> since events that are simultaneous on one frame of reference (the >> barn) are not simultaneous on the other frame of reference (the one of >> the pole). Piece of cake.... > > Indeed, except that the lack of simultaneity here is a *visual* > effect. Wrong > And that's always where the monacles fall into the drinking > glasses. You REALLY need to learn what SR actually says before posting such nonsense.
From: Sue... on 5 Apr 2010 21:56 On Apr 5, 9:25 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: =============== > > Indeed, except that the lack of simultaneity here is a *visual* > effect. And that's always where the monacles fall into the drinking > glasses. Hint 1 Einstein wrote of an *apparent* conflict with PoR and "c". Hint 2 http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue...
From: paparios on 5 Apr 2010 22:00
On 5 abr, 21:25, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 6 Apr, 01:38, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 5 abr, 19:33, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > That is totally correct. It means the paradox is not a paradox at all, > > since events that are simultaneous on one frame of reference (the > > barn) are not simultaneous on the other frame of reference (the one of > > the pole). Piece of cake.... > > Indeed, except that the lack of simultaneity here is a *visual* > effect. And that's always where the monacles fall into the drinking > glasses. It is a measured effect (provided you could accelerate a pole to those speeds and put some instruments on it). The relevant events are the aperture/closure of the barn doors, which are as real as they can be. On the barn frame of reference both doors could be safely closed, simultaneously, for 1 nanosecond, with the pole inside the barn and not touching any of the doors (those are two events, which in the frame of reference of the barn are simultaneous). On the pole frame of reference, these same two events do happen (as they should since any two physical events happening on one frame have also to be observed in any other frame), but this time they are not simultaneous (one door closes-opens before the other door). Miguel Rios |