EINSTEINIANA AND REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....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. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and
it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring
back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the
other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false. In the era of Postscientism the compressed 80m long pole inside
the 40m long barn can only be a glorious manifestation of the validity
of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev

The pole only appears to be shorter. It is not physically shorter. End
of argument.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....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. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and
it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring
back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the
other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false. In the era of Postscientism the compressed 80m long pole inside
the 40m long barn can only be a glorious manifestation of the validity
of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 12, 4:40*pm, john joseph wrote:
The pole only appears to be shorter. It is not physically shorter. End
of argument.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/son...neEinstein.pdf

Pentcho Valev

On Jun 11, 11:58*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. *Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. *So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....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. *The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. *If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. *There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. *If it does not explode under the strain and
it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring
back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the
other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false. In the era of Postscientism the compressed 80m long pole inside
the 40m long barn can only be a glorious manifestation of the validity
of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev

What is "barn"? Why did you chose a "barn" if it is just a prob? Why
not just say "an arbitrary object"?

On Jun 12, 9:51 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...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. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....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. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and
it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring
back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the
other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false. In the era of Postscientism the compressed 80m long pole inside
the 40m long barn can only be a glorious manifestation of the validity
of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence: the bug is both dead and alive.
Einstein's 1905 light postulate from which this conclusion is deduced
should be rejected as false.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "Let us consider a space-time domain in which no
gravitational fields exists relative to a reference-body K whose state
of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian reference-
body as regards the domain considered, and the results of the special
theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us suppose the same
domain referred to a second body of reference K', which is rotating
uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas, we shall
imagine K' to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which rotates
uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who is
sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts
outwards in a radial direction, and which would be interpreted as an
effect of inertia (centrifugal force) by an observer who was at rest
with respect to the original reference-body K......To start with, he
places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the
circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are
at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at
the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian
reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of
the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is
in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a
result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes
at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of
the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence. If Einstein had been honest, his
text would be: "According to a result obtained in Section XII, it
follows that either clock goes at a rate permanently slower than the
other clock". The only camouflage Einsteinians use in this case is
based on the fact that the clock placed "on the edge of the disc"
experiences some "gravitational field", a fact which, according to
Einsteiniana's perverse logic, implies that the reciprocal time
dilation following from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (either
clock runs slower than the other) should somehow become non-reciprocal
(the clock experiencing no gravitational field should become faster
than the clock experiencing a gravitational field). However clever
Einsteinians know that, by increasing the diameter of the disc and
keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one can reduce the
gravitational field to zero. Then another slight modification of the
thought experiment (the non-rotating clock should be placed in the
vicinity of the rotating periphery) makes the absurdity of the
"reciprocal" conclusion obvious. Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the
source of all such absurdities, should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev

john joseph wrote:

The pole only appears to be shorter. It is not physically shorter. End
of argument.

As loathe as I am to respond to a Pentcho Valev thread, I must, sort of,
disagree.

The length of the pole is different in different frames of reference.
To the observer in the pole's frame of reference, the pole is the
same 80 feet long. It is the barn that is shorter in that frame
of reference.

The "paradox" is solved when we realize that the barn doors are
not shut "at the same time" in the pole's frame of reference.

--
hz

No, no reductionism! try holism!