Re: Theory of Space cannot afford Time.
dr.go...@gmail.com
> You can't keep a record of time in Light itself ....
Dude, post your video links, too!
PD
> scenario you use, there will only ever be a limited resource of
> physical matter, in the universe for which to keep a record of time.
> Even my words right now are expending many kinds of resources. So here
> is a theory. And you will see how clearly possible it is to Maroon the
> process of recording time, as though it were a ship on a Desert
> island. I think this is a bit bigger than the Y2K bug people.
>
> The universe is finite, but it is also unbounded. So...
>
> Y's Theory.
>
> Postulate 1. The Non Conservation of Matter.
> For every unit of time that is dedicated to the count, and recorded
> into physical representation, that unit of time has been transformed
> from an imaginary dimension without physical matter, into a quantity
> of physical matter.
>
> Postulate 2. The Inevitable Lack of Resource.
> No matter what resource we use; Even if it were some indivisable unit
> of matter, if we continue to record time for eternity; at some point
> along the line before eternity, we would have expended all resources
> or
> have to reset the count.
>
> Postulate 3. Providing Postulate 's 1 and Postulate 's 2 have come to
> pass. Time itself
> would become marooned.
I think you don't know what a physical theory is.
Can you please provide a quantitative prediction of a measurable
quantity?
That's what a physical theory does.
PD
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> I think you don't know what a physical theory is.
> Can you please provide a quantitative prediction of a measurable
> quantity?
> That's what a physical theory does.
>
> PD
Clever Draper, I have aleady asked you and you did reply I must admit
but I cannot remember your answer so again: What is the quantitative
prediction, Clever Draper, for the length of a 80m long pole safely
trapped inside a 40m long barn, provided your brothers have forgotten
to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly" and the doors don't
break:
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> On Aug 13, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > I think you don't know what a physical theory is.
> > Can you please provide a quantitative prediction of a measurable
> > quantity?
> > That's what a physical theory does.
>
> > PD
>
> Clever Draper, I have aleady asked you and you did reply I must admit
> but I cannot remember your answer so again: What is the quantitative
> prediction, Clever Draper, for the length of a 80m long pole safely
> trapped inside a 40m long barn, provided your brothers have forgotten
> to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly" and the doors don't
> break:
Well, of course the quantitative prediction depends on the relative
speed between the pole and the barn, but there certainly is a value of
the relative speed for which the quantitative prediction for the
length of the pole in the barn frame is not 80m but 39m. (The "80m"
you referred to in your question above is an adjective that presumably
applies in the rest frame of the pole, but does not apply in any other
frame.) This yields the qualitative prediction that the doors can be
closed briefly without touching either end of the pole.
Now, no one has done this exact experiment with a barn and a pole,
though there is a clearly a quantitative prediction. Fortunately, the
theory makes a number of other quantitative predictions which HAVE
been tested -- and confirmed -- in experiment.
The role of the barn-and-pole puzzle is then left, not as an
experimental prediction, but as a teaching exercise -- which
apparently still leaves some Bulgarians addled.
Pentcho Valev
Bravo Clever Draper! Bulgarians are by no means addled - rather, they
adore you and your answers. Just a small elaboration: "the
quantitative prediction for the length of the pole in the barn frame
is not 80m but 39m" but then, when the pole is safely trapped inside
the barn, it will try to restore its proper length (which is 80m). But
since the doors of the barn don't break, the pole will be able to
restore only 1 meter so when Clever Draper goes and measures the
length of the trapped pole, Clever Draper clearly sees a 40m long
pole, perhaps a few centimetres longer if the doors are slightly
deformed. Is this realistic, Clever Draper? A 40m long pole and that's
it?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
Why would it do that? The doors NEVER touch the ends of the pole.
If you have a fly that flies into a barn and you shut the doors of the
barn, the fly continues to fly around inside the barn, and when you
open the doors of the barn, the fly flies out.
Why are you assuming the pole is brought to rest inside the barn? You
perhaps misunderstand the barn and pole puzzle as it is commonly
taught.
The pole enters the barn.
The doors are briefly shut, while the pole is *still* moving at
constant velocity.
The doors never touch the ends of the pole.
Before the pole reaches the far door, the doors are opened back up.
The pole continues to fly out, never having changed speed.
You mean ALL THIS TIME you've been flummoxed by the barn and pole
paradox BECAUSE YOU CAN'T READ???
Pentcho Valev
Clever Draper, Cleverest Draper, why these zombie tricks again? Look
at my initial question and you will see the phrase:
"....provided your brothers have forgotten to reopen the doors of the
barn "pretty quickly"...."
In other words Clever Draper, your brothers always camouflage the
idiotic implication of Divine Albert's Divine Theory by reopening the
doors of the barn "pretty quickly" but only once they failed to do so
and now we are discussing the consequences of their failure. How long
is the pole trapped and immobile inside the barn, Clever Draper?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
Then your question is, is it a quantitative prediction that an 80m
pole will be trapped *intact* in a 40m barn if you decide to keep the
barn doors closed? The answer to that is: no, relativity makes no such
prediction.
If you close the doors and strike one end of a very rapidly moving
pole with the barn door, then all sorts of other physics gets
involved.
PD
> Pd I will try, ,
>
> And it might take me a few hundred thousand km's. . .
>
> Maybe you can help me ?
>
> Lets see . . .
>
> Mass of the universe is . . .
>
> 1.59486 × 10^(55) kg / minimum mass of a singular unit required to
> represent time.
>
> = The total number of available units.
>
> I dunno. . .
>
> Eternity = Mass(universe)/ Mass (SI)
I'm sorry, what is the *measurable quantity* in the above? Do you
understand the question?
PD
> I think I understood the question, but perhaps you need to clarify it
> more ? When you asked for a quantitative prediction, was the equation
> I provided what you were looking for ?
No, because none of the quantities in that equation are identifiable
as *measurable* quantities. You do know what measurement is, don't
you?
Pentcho Valev
But then Clever Draper goes to the place (he is curious this Clever
Draper) and measures the length of what was once a 80m long pole but
is now something trapped inside the 40m long barn. What is the maximal
length of this something trapped inside the 40m long barn? 40m
perhaps? Special relativity does not predict even this?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Spaceman
According to the bullshit of SR,
It will depend on if the barn is moving or not and who is
observing the measurement.
If it is moving fast enough according to a certian observer,
it will be shorter so then the maximum will decrease
even more.
It is so full of contracted bullshit, who would ever want to open the doors.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
PD
No, of course not. Special relativity doesn't have anything to do with
the length of a pole after it's been hit with a barn door. Why would
you think it does?
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Any theory is closely related to its implications, even when some of
them are absurd. Special relativity predicts that a 80m long object
can be trapped inside a 40m long container. Then the description of
the state of the trapped object is special relativity's implication.
Some time ago we discussed the same problem and then you said, if I am
not mistaken, that the density of the trapped object can increase
twice. That was special relativity's implication, although idiotic.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
No, it doesn't say that, if by "trapped" you mean "brought to a stop".
It says no such thing.
> Then the description of
> the state of the trapped object is special relativity's implication.
> Some time ago we discussed the same problem and then you said, if I am
> not mistaken, that the density of the trapped object can increase
> twice. That was special relativity's implication, although idiotic.
No, that is not special relativity's implication. That is the
implication of the rest of the physics that gets involved when you
have a door smacking into a pole. And no, it is not idiotic.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> Oh look. If an 80m pole dosn't fit in a barn, you will need to bend it
> or something.
>
> Whoever suggests that the doors can close in instant keeping the pole
> neatly inside for that instant is crackers. If the Maths allow for it,
> the maths are wrong, simple as that.
Actually, it's not the math that allows it, it's the laws of physics!
>
> Only thing required to do, is keep testing the math in a friendly way
> to ensure that this falsehood doesn't crop up. If it can be
> demonstrated that it does, then the math is certainly questionable.
Dirk Van de moortel
fe1defe6-a029-4cbf...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com
> Oh look. If an 80m pole dosn't fit in a barn, you will need to bend it
> or something.
Yes, bend it, break it, or make it go very fast or something.
>
> Whoever suggests that the doors can close in instant keeping the pole
> neatly inside for that instant is crackers. If the Maths allow for it,
> the maths are wrong, simple as that.
No, the maths are right by design.
Perhaps the postulates from wich the math came are wrong.
Or perhaps your intuition was wong.
Or perhaps the "instant when", or better, "the time during which"
the pole was inside, was extremely short.
>
> Only thing required to do, is keep testing the math in a friendly way
> to ensure that this falsehood doesn't crop up.
No need to keep testing the math.
You can however test the physics.
But there is no need to do it in a friendly way.
> If it can be
> demonstrated that it does, then the math is certainly questionable.
You don't have much of a clue about how physics works, it seems.
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> fe1defe6-a029-4cbf-af66-0c56ef11f...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com
>
> > Oh look. If an 80m pole dosn't fit in a barn, you will need to bend it
> > or something.
>
> Yes, bend it, break it, or make it go very fast or something.
>
>
>
> > Whoever suggests that the doors can close in instant keeping the pole
> > neatly inside for that instant is crackers. If the Maths allow for it,
> > the maths are wrong, simple as that.
>
> No, the maths are right by design.
> Perhaps the postulates from wich the math came are wrong.
Clever Moortel, Cleverest Moortel, what are you talking about? Master
Tom Roberts will never again say "Bravo Moortel clever zombie". Never
again!
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> So,
>
> PD, what you are saying, is that appart from the creative banter,
> there's no way of proving whether you can do this with numbers ?
It's not a matter of numbers. It's a matter of experiment.
While the barn and pole situation has not been explicitly done, the
same theory that predicts that the pole fits in the barn also predicts
a number of other things that have been explicitly tested in
experiment.
Thus, *reality* becomes the arbiter between different imaginations,
different common senses, different theories.
If one theory says A will happen and B will not, and another theory
says B will happen and A will not, it makes absolutely no difference
whatsoever whether one theory is more eloquently argued or whether one
theory is more original or whether one theory has more involved
mathematics. What matters is that, when you look in nature, A appears
-- and then the decision between the two theories is both simple and
unarguable.
PD
>
> So its just one imagination against another then ?
Dirk Van de moortel
On this forum we do not top-post.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Aug 15, 5:46 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO->> e9cc4384-32df-43c9-87d2-10c5748fb...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com
>>
>> On this forum we do not top-post.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
>
So I was not the first to tell you - and yet you continue top-posting?
Oh dear, not another one of those :-)
But I see you did it properly now. Good :-|
Dirk Vdm
PD
> Nicely said. Still seems like magic to me.
>
Yes, but that's what makes science an amazing field to be in. Nature
often surprises us, exhibiting behavior that makes absolutely no sense
to us. When this happens, it is the obligation of mankind to adjust
its "common sense" to what nature really does, rather than the other
way around.
What science does is put together a theory that not only matches these
unexpected phenomena but predicts more phenomena that can be tested.
Sometimes the basic premises of these theories *still* are counter to
common sense, and that's what gives them the air of magic. But if they
*work* -- that is, it does match what nature does -- then we have no
sound reason to doubt them.
Science is not a place for the folks who long for the comfortable, the
understandable, and the familiar. It is for those who relish the
moments where one has to say, "Didn't see that coming!"
PD
Pentcho Valev
>
> > Oh look. If an 80m pole dosn't fit in a barn, you will need to bend it
> > or something.
>
> Yes, bend it, break it, or make it go very fast or something.
>
>
>
> > Whoever suggests that the doors can close in instant keeping the pole
> > neatly inside for that instant is crackers. If the Maths allow for it,
> > the maths are wrong, simple as that.
>
> No, the maths are right by design.
> Perhaps the postulates from wich the math came are wrong.
> Or perhaps your intuition was wong.
> Or perhaps the "instant when", or better, "the time during which"
> the pole was inside, was extremely short.
>
>
>
> > Only thing required to do, is keep testing the math in a friendly way
> > to ensure that this falsehood doesn't crop up.
>
> No need to keep testing the math.
> You can however test the physics.
> But there is no need to do it in a friendly way.
Something tells me, Cleverest Moortel, that you have somehow
understood the idiocy of this "physics". Why don't you test it, on
this forum, in a non-friendly way? You should only asume that your
brothers have forgotten to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty
quickly":
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
Note that I've already answered this, but that he wants to see what
you say.
He seems to be stuck on trying to insist that if the door is shut and
the pole hits the door, what happens after that point should still be
a special relativity prediction.
He also has it stuck in his head that a tangible pole can only
compress so much, no matter how fast the front of it is decelerated. I
believe he is willing to entertain a compression of a few cm for an 80
m long pole, but the notion that the back of the pole could move half
the pole's length before even knowing that the front of the pole had
been hit, is just anathema to him.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
296d7c8b-1232-4245...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
ha... I don't open all Pispo's rants, just every now and then
I look at one of them - it doesn't matter to whom he replies,
since it's always the same anyway.
And I don't really care what he wants to see. He doesn't
seem to care either.
>
> He seems to be stuck on trying to insist that if the door is shut and
> the pole hits the door, what happens after that point should still be
> a special relativity prediction.
>
> He also has it stuck in his head that a tangible pole can only
> compress so much, no matter how fast the front of it is decelerated. I
> believe he is willing to entertain a compression of a few cm for an 80
> m long pole, but the notion that the back of the pole could move half
> the pole's length before even knowing that the front of the pole had
> been hit, is just anathema to him.
He first appeared here with his idea of Time Constriction as the
definitive "disproof of time dilation".
I bet it's still in there somewhere.
I *hope* it is still in there.
Dirk Vdm
Pentcho Valev
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Clever Moortel if you want to discuss this "Time Constriction" just
let me know and I will be very helpful. But first do test the barn-
pole "physics", Clever Moortel! Brother Draper is trying to help you
and you...so careless... Does the test amount to reductio ad absurdum?
This is much more important than my "Time Constriction"!
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> On Aug 15, 5:44 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's not a matter of numbers. It's a matter of experiment.
> > While the barn and pole situation has not been explicitly done, the
> > same theory that predicts that the pole fits in the barn also predicts
> > a number of other things that have been explicitly tested in
> > experiment.
>
> objects with mass ?
Yes.
>
> Well maybe it is starting to make sense to me now what the theory is
> actually implying. Maybe the theory implies that an instant is
> impossible. The theory might also imply that movement in an instant is
> unquantifiable within an intsant - therefore the doors might have
> never closed. Nor might there have even been a barn. To say that the
> doors have closed wouldn't belong to the equation, ,and neither would
> the 80 m pole. So, Maybe if you put a non existent 80m pole into a
> non existent 40m barn, they aren't going to bump into one another.
>
> if an equation is like a sentence, that can be easily read, i wonder
> how accurate the sentences above are to the theory.
PiBoy
> I do. Really I do. . .As an architect, I am accustomed to the fact
> that my ruler, i.e. the thing I am measuring with has a mass.
>
> Eternity = Mass(universe)/ Mass (SI)
>
> Therefore
>
> When the total number of SI units required to explain the date,
> reaches the mass of the Universe, (approx 1.5 x 10^(55)kg's), then you
> will have an Eternity of 1. Then, you will need to reset the count.
>
> On Aug 14, 3:10 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 11:53 am, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > No, because none of the quantities in that equation are identifiable
> > as *measurable* quantities. You do know what measurement is, don't
> > you?
>
>
And what happens if Mass dose not exist? And a summing that energy is
all that exist.
And the movement of the universe cause the energy to expand to such a
way it looks like mass.
P
PiBoy
ANd nobody answare.. it seems that I am out of the Question
Edward Green
> On Aug 13, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > I think you don't know what a physical theory is.
> > Can you please provide a quantitative prediction of a measurable
> > quantity?
> > That's what a physical theory does.
>
> > PD
>
> Clever Draper, I have aleady asked you and you did reply I must admit
> but I cannot remember your answer so again: What is the quantitative
> prediction, Clever Draper, for the length of a 80m long pole safely
> trapped inside a 40m long barn, provided your brothers have forgotten
> to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly" and the doors don't
> break:
>
> http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
> the barn....
Barns, like image displays, are sold on the diagonal measure; and
since barns are 3-solids, their principal diagonal is even longer
relative to the sides for a given aspect ratio. So there is a good
chance this is really a "80m barn" (measured diagonally) -- and
relativity requires the pole to go in on an angle. It is in fact well
known that if we literally inquire "what we see" of a rapidly moving
object, we see it not shortened, but rotated. So there is your
resolution -- relativity requires moving objects to rotate.
<This was a very silly reply>
> So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
> instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
> close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
> them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> contracted pole shut up in your barn."
It is a point not generally emphasized in treatments of relativity
that, in each reference frame, we may treat all relativistic effects
as "physical" as physical may be. That is, in the frame in which the
relativistically moving pole has contracted to 39m, we may take a
suitably quantum corrected version of Lorentz ether theory to be
literally true, and the pole to actually be contracted to 39m in
length as a result of its motion through the ether, which just happens
to be at rest in our reference frame.
The unexpected twist to this description is that it turns out,
assuming perfect local Lorentz symmetry, that _any_ suitably related
frame may equally well be considered to be the just-happens-to-be rest
frame of the ether; but the view of an actual physical contraction
remains acceptable and predictive within any given frame.
So what is there to be predicted if we don't open the doors "pretty
quickly"? That much is obvious: we are going to have a very badly
damaged pole or barn. Now, in general, we know we are not free to
make arbitrary material assumptions in relativity (no perfectly rigid
bodies, e.g.), but I think we reach no contradiction if we assume
either the pole or the doors, but not both, cannot break. Then the
other one must, or at least undergo some deformation.
Actually, we might assume that the pole bounced back and forth between
the doors -- without breaking and without losing energy -- the
discrepancy between the segment traveling to the right at near c and
that traveling to the left, and any given instant in the rest frame of
the barn, being taken up by elastic deformation of the pole, where
"elastic" is that kind of deformation resulting in energy storage
which can be seen in the instantaneous rest frame of that portion of
the pole, as opposed to the relativistic deformation, which cannot be
detected directly in the instantaneous rest frame of each segment of
the pole.
<That was a serious reply.>
Edward Green
> On Aug 13, 3:47 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 13, 8:25 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 13, 2:30 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > sci.physics.relativity:
>
> > > > I think you don't know what a physical theory is.
> > > > Can you please provide a quantitative prediction of a measurable
> > > > quantity?
> > > > That's what a physical theory does.
>
> > > > PD
>
> > > Clever Draper, I have aleady asked you and you did reply I must admit
> > > but I cannot remember your answer so again: What is the quantitative
> > > prediction, Clever Draper, for the length of a 80m long pole safely
> > > trapped inside a 40m long barn, provided your brothers have forgotten
> > > to reopen the doors of the barn "pretty quickly" and the doors don't
> > > break:
>
> > speed between the pole and the barn, but there certainly is a value of
> > the relative speed for which the quantitative prediction for the
> > length of the pole in the barn frame is not 80m but 39m. (The "80m"
> > you referred to in your question above is an adjective that presumably
> > applies in the rest frame of the pole, but does not apply in any other
> > frame.) This yields the qualitative prediction that the doors can be
> > closed briefly without touching either end of the pole.
>
> > Now, no one has done this exact experiment with a barn and a pole,
> > though there is a clearly a quantitative prediction. Fortunately, the
> > theory makes a number of other quantitative predictions which HAVE
> > been tested -- and confirmed -- in experiment.
>
> > The role of the barn-and-pole puzzle is then left, not as an
> > experimental prediction, but as a teaching exercise -- which
> > apparently still leaves some Bulgarians addled.
>
> > >http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> > > "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> > > at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> > > switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
> > > instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
> > > close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
> > > them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> > > contracted pole shut up in your barn."
>
> adore you and your answers. Just a small elaboration: "the
> quantitative prediction for the length of the pole in the barn frame
> is not 80m but 39m" but then, when the pole is safely trapped inside
> since the doors of the barn don't break, the pole will be able to
> restore only 1 meter so when Clever Draper goes and measures the
> length of the trapped pole, Clever Draper clearly sees a 40m long
> pole, perhaps a few centimetres longer if the doors are slightly
> deformed. Is this realistic, Clever Draper? A 40m long pole and that's
> it?
Seriously, Pentcho, if you want to be "realistic" (your word), what
would you expect to happen in the kind of collision between a
projectile and any possible material containment, when the relative
velocity before collision was sufficient to introduce a length
contraction, as seen by observers on either object, of over 50%?
You speak as if the pole were to come to a stop suddenly, with nothing
but an embarrassingly large degree of elastic and plastic deformation
to show for it. But indeed, silly as that is, that is sufficient: as
I said, there are limits to our material assumptions in special
relativity, and either the pole or the barn will (minimally) have to
undergo sufficient plastic and elastic deformation when the doors
shut, to accommodate the mismatch.
I mean, that's still a silly answer, since we really expect something
more along the lines of a fireball, possibly with an assortment of
nuclear reactions. But "elastic and plastic deformation" is
sufficient and minimally necessary to resolve the dimensional mismatch
when the doors close, and we thereby try to bring the relative
velocity of pole and barn to zero. If you want to say it's an
absolutely rigid and unbreakable barn and rigid and unbreakable pole,
then you have a logical contradiction. The way you write, the pole
was out for no more than a casual stroll when its friend the barn
addressed it, and brought it up short. "Hello, old beanpole!" "Eh,
oh, Barn, how are things with the cows and haylofts"?
Edward Green
> On Aug 14, 3:10 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 14, 9:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
>
> > SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > fe1defe6-a029-4cbf-af66-0c56ef11f...@p31g2000prf.googlegroups.com
>
> > > > or something.
>
> > > Yes, bend it, break it, or make it go very fast or something.
>
> > > > Whoever suggests that the doors can close in instant keeping thepole
> > > > neatly inside for that instant is crackers. If the Maths allow for it,
> > > > the maths are wrong, simple as that.
>
> > > No, the maths are right by design.
> > > Perhaps the postulates from wich the math came are wrong.
> > > Or perhaps your intuition was wong.
> > > Or perhaps the "instant when", or better, "the time during which"
>
> > > > Only thing required to do, is keep testing the math in a friendly way
> > > > to ensure that this falsehood doesn't crop up.
>
> > > No need to keep testing the math.
> > > You can however test the physics.
> > > But there is no need to do it in a friendly way.
>
> > Something tells me, Cleverest Moortel, that you have somehow
> > understood the idiocy of this "physics". Why don't you test it, on
> > this forum, in a non-friendly way? You should only asume that your
> > quickly":
>
> >http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
> > "These are the props. You own abarn, 40m long, with automatic doors
> > at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
> > thebarn....So, as thepolepasses through thebarn, there is an
> > instant when it is completely within thebarn. At that instant, you
> > close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
> > them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
> > contractedpoleshut up in yourbarn."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> Note that I've already answered this, but that he wants to see what
> you say.
>
> He seems to be stuck on trying to insist that if the door is shut and
> a special relativity prediction.
>
> He also has it stuck in his head that a tangiblepolecan only
> compress so much, no matter how fast the front of it is decelerated. I
> believe he is willing to entertain a compression of a few cm for an 80
> thepole'slength before even knowing that the front of thepolehad
> been hit, is just anathema to him.
That's a good way of putting it, except that in the rest frame of the
barn, the back of the pole doesn't have to move at all before
realizing the front has been hit in order to fit inside the barn: it's
already inside! It will continue to move some fraction of the length
of the barn before the first possibility of light speed harbingers of
the destruction of the front of the pole can reach it.
In the rest frame of the pole, things look even worse. The 80m pole
is hit by this length compressed looking barn less than _20_ m in
length, and even so there is no possibility of the rear end beginning
to move until it's overtaken by the rear doors of the barn! So in this
frame we are guaranteed an instantaneous overall compression of the
pole to less than 20m, a combination of physical destruction, and the
relativistic shortening of the fraction of the pole already
accelerated to the velocity of the door -- assuming the door is
indestructible.