HOW NEUTRINOS THREATEN SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: Neutrinos do travel faster than light.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is true.

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with
the speed of the light source in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Is the argument valid?

Pentcho Valev

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."

Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: The bug-rivet paradox is in fact an absurdity.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is true.

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with
the speed of the light source in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Is the argument valid?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| 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."
|
| Consider the following argument:
|
| Premise 1: The bug-rivet paradox is in fact an absurdity.
|
| Premise 2: The principle of relativity is true.
|
| Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with
| the speed of the light source in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
| given by Newton's emission theory of light.
|
| Is the argument valid?
|
| Pentcho Valev

The end of the rivet is just 0.35 cm down in the hole when the head
of the rivet hits the wall. So the bug isN'T squashed.....All this is
nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head never reaches
the wall when the rivet end is down in the hole! The rivet totally
squashes the bug....
The Einstein length expansion xi = x'/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
is not the Lorentz length contraction L' = L * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

Conclusion: you can't read algebra.

Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: The frequency of light (as measured by the observer) varies
with phi, the gravitational potential, in accordance with the equation
f'=f(1+phi/c^2).

Premise 2: The equivalence principle is true.

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with
the speed of the light source in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Is the argument valid?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Consider the following argument:

Premise 1: Neutrinos do travel faster than light.

Premise 2: The principle of relativity is true.

Conclusion: The speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with
the speed of the light source in accordance with the equation c'=c+v
given by Newton's emission theory of light.

Is the argument valid?


No. And nor is it an "argument", it is just a false statement which you
claim follows from a false assumption (neutrinos travel faster than light),
but with no justification of how you moved from your false assumption to
your false conclusion.




Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana's absolute optimism in the face of the neutrino threat:

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/18/142518...ter-than-light
Brian Greene: "The idea that this would somehow throw Einstein out the
window that's just not true - mc^2 would still be with us, all the
wonderful features of relativity will still be with us. We'll just
have a more refined version of relativity to accomodate these results
if they are true."

Bravo, Brian Greene! One thing is sure - the wonderful features of
relativity will always be with you, and you will always be with them:

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. (...) 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."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse
dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce
tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait
possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc
réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION
matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/op...t-we-knew.html
Brian Greene: "Now, however, modern physics' notion of time is clearly
at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted
the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with
"painful but inevitable resignation." The developments since his era
have only widened the disparity between common experience and
scientific knowledge. Most physicists cope with this disparity by
compartmentalizing: there's time as understood scientifically, and
then there's time as experienced intuitively. For decades, I've
struggled to bring my experience closer to my understanding. In my
everyday routines, I delight in what I know is the individual's power,
however imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I
often conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step,
I further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in
moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events
exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition
into past, present and future being a useful but subjective
organization."

Pentcho Valev