Why Einstein Proposed That Speed Of Light Is Invariable....

On May 15, 4:37*am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
Either the bug is dead smashed by the river or not
dead.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

OK. That is a rather bad gedanken, because a) it assumes seriously
impossible properties of the rivet, and b) there is no inertial frame in
which the rivet REMAINS at rest. I have no desire to discuss it because
it is so bad. That's probably why I had forgotten it.

If you want to discuss the pole-barn paradox, be sure to use the version
that has equal-length barn and pole (in their respective rest frames),
with barn door 1 initially closed and door 2 initially open. The pole
enters through door 2, and immediately after the back of the pole passes
door 2 it is closed and then door 1 is opened (VERY short delay, VERY
fast doors). So the pole sails through without ever touching either
door, yet there was an instant in the barn frame when both doors were
closed and the (shortened) pole was between them. In the pole frame, of
course, this is described as door 1 opening before the front of the pole
reaches it, and there is a period of time during which both barn doors
are open and the (unshortened) pole slides through the (shortened) barn
with both doors open; after the back of the pole passes door 1 it closes
and the pole continues out of the barn.

My point is: some things are reasonable to assume in a gedanken, and
some are not. It is reasonable to assume that doors can open and close
arbitrarily quickly, because they need not really be physical doors. But
it is not reasonable to assume a rivet is prefectly rigid, because that
is inconsistent with SR (the speed of sound cannot exceed the speed of
light, which makes a perfectly rigid object impossible). And it is not
reasonable in a gedanken to expect the student to wrestle with
accelerating frames (such as that of the rigid rivet after its head
stops by hitting the wall).

* * * * Of course in the bug-and-rivet gedanken, if one does not
* * * * assume infinitely-rigid rivet and wall, the bug is
* * * * always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate upon
* * * * impact. A 10-gram rivet traveling at 0.9 c would have a
* * * * kinetic energy comparable to that of a small atomic bomb.

Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts the irrelevancy and idiocy of your last argument (Tom
Roberts: "the bug is always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate
upon impact") can be seen even by the silliest zombies in Einstein
criminal cult, and you are not among them. So the question is: Why are
you so dishonest Roberts Roberts?

Pentcho Valev

On May 15, 6:48*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On May 15, 4:37*am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:





Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
Either the bug is dead smashed by the river or not
dead.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

OK. That is a rather bad gedanken, because a) it assumes seriously
impossible properties of the rivet, and b) there is no inertial frame in
which the rivet REMAINS at rest. I have no desire to discuss it because
it is so bad. That's probably why I had forgotten it.

If you want to discuss the pole-barn paradox, be sure to use the version
that has equal-length barn and pole (in their respective rest frames),
with barn door 1 initially closed and door 2 initially open. The pole
enters through door 2, and immediately after the back of the pole passes
door 2 it is closed and then door 1 is opened (VERY short delay, VERY
fast doors). So the pole sails through without ever touching either
door, yet there was an instant in the barn frame when both doors were
closed and the (shortened) pole was between them. In the pole frame, of
course, this is described as door 1 opening before the front of the pole
reaches it, and there is a period of time during which both barn doors
are open and the (unshortened) pole slides through the (shortened) barn
with both doors open; after the back of the pole passes door 1 it closes
and the pole continues out of the barn.

My point is: some things are reasonable to assume in a gedanken, and
some are not. It is reasonable to assume that doors can open and close
arbitrarily quickly, because they need not really be physical doors. But
it is not reasonable to assume a rivet is prefectly rigid, because that
is inconsistent with SR (the speed of sound cannot exceed the speed of
light, which makes a perfectly rigid object impossible). And it is not
reasonable in a gedanken to expect the student to wrestle with
accelerating frames (such as that of the rigid rivet after its head
stops by hitting the wall).

* * * * Of course in the bug-and-rivet gedanken, if one does not
* * * * assume infinitely-rigid rivet and wall, the bug is
* * * * always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate upon
* * * * impact. A 10-gram rivet traveling at 0.9 c would have a
* * * * kinetic energy comparable to that of a small atomic bomb..

Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts the irrelevancy and idiocy of your last argument (Tom
Roberts: "the bug is always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate
upon impact") can be seen even by the silliest zombies in Einstein
criminal cult, and you are not among them. So the question is: Why are
you so dishonest Roberts Roberts?

I will be very dissapointed but since his last statement I think there
may be an issue of dishonesty here, something I did not want to accept
before.

However, I am thinking: how come so many people ware controlled by so
few and cannot voice their concerns.

The argument about all SR predictions being validated or so has
nothing to do. These are also the predictions of a general class of
theories that do not use contancy of c.

What's going on?

Mike




Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 15, 3:58*pm, Mike wrote:
On May 15, 6:48*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





On May 15, 4:37*am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
Either the bug is dead smashed by the river or not
dead.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

OK. That is a rather bad gedanken, because a) it assumes seriously
impossible properties of the rivet, and b) there is no inertial frame in
which the rivet REMAINS at rest. I have no desire to discuss it because
it is so bad. That's probably why I had forgotten it.

If you want to discuss the pole-barn paradox, be sure to use the version
that has equal-length barn and pole (in their respective rest frames),
with barn door 1 initially closed and door 2 initially open. The pole
enters through door 2, and immediately after the back of the pole passes
door 2 it is closed and then door 1 is opened (VERY short delay, VERY
fast doors). So the pole sails through without ever touching either
door, yet there was an instant in the barn frame when both doors were
closed and the (shortened) pole was between them. In the pole frame, of
course, this is described as door 1 opening before the front of the pole
reaches it, and there is a period of time during which both barn doors
are open and the (unshortened) pole slides through the (shortened) barn
with both doors open; after the back of the pole passes door 1 it closes
and the pole continues out of the barn.

My point is: some things are reasonable to assume in a gedanken, and
some are not. It is reasonable to assume that doors can open and close
arbitrarily quickly, because they need not really be physical doors. But
it is not reasonable to assume a rivet is prefectly rigid, because that
is inconsistent with SR (the speed of sound cannot exceed the speed of
light, which makes a perfectly rigid object impossible). And it is not
reasonable in a gedanken to expect the student to wrestle with
accelerating frames (such as that of the rigid rivet after its head
stops by hitting the wall).

* * * * Of course in the bug-and-rivet gedanken, if one does not
* * * * assume infinitely-rigid rivet and wall, the bug is
* * * * always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate upon
* * * * impact. A 10-gram rivet traveling at 0.9 c would have a
* * * * kinetic energy comparable to that of a small atomic bomb.

Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts the irrelevancy and idiocy of your last argument (Tom
Roberts: "the bug is always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate
upon impact") can be seen even by the silliest zombies in Einstein
criminal cult, and you are not among them. So the question is: Why are
you so dishonest Roberts Roberts?

I will be very dissapointed but since his last statement I think there
may be an issue of dishonesty here, something I did not want to accept
before.

However, I am thinking: how come so many people ware controlled by so
few and cannot voice their concerns.

The argument about all SR predictions being validated or so has
nothing to do. These are also the predictions of a general class of
theories that do not use contancy of c.

What's going on?

Mike

I have referred to Big Brother's story too many times but, in my view,
Orwell's explanation remains closest to the truth:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

On May 15, 10:08*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On May 15, 3:58*pm, Mike wrote:





On May 15, 6:48*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On May 15, 4:37*am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
Either the bug is dead smashed by the river or not
dead.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

OK. That is a rather bad gedanken, because a) it assumes seriously
impossible properties of the rivet, and b) there is no inertial frame in
which the rivet REMAINS at rest. I have no desire to discuss it because
it is so bad. That's probably why I had forgotten it.

If you want to discuss the pole-barn paradox, be sure to use the version
that has equal-length barn and pole (in their respective rest frames),
with barn door 1 initially closed and door 2 initially open. The pole
enters through door 2, and immediately after the back of the pole passes
door 2 it is closed and then door 1 is opened (VERY short delay, VERY
fast doors). So the pole sails through without ever touching either
door, yet there was an instant in the barn frame when both doors were
closed and the (shortened) pole was between them. In the pole frame, of
course, this is described as door 1 opening before the front of the pole
reaches it, and there is a period of time during which both barn doors
are open and the (unshortened) pole slides through the (shortened) barn
with both doors open; after the back of the pole passes door 1 it closes
and the pole continues out of the barn.

My point is: some things are reasonable to assume in a gedanken, and
some are not. It is reasonable to assume that doors can open and close
arbitrarily quickly, because they need not really be physical doors. But
it is not reasonable to assume a rivet is prefectly rigid, because that
is inconsistent with SR (the speed of sound cannot exceed the speed of
light, which makes a perfectly rigid object impossible). And it is not
reasonable in a gedanken to expect the student to wrestle with
accelerating frames (such as that of the rigid rivet after its head
stops by hitting the wall).

* * * * Of course in the bug-and-rivet gedanken, if one does not
* * * * assume infinitely-rigid rivet and wall, the bug is
* * * * always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate upon
* * * * impact. A 10-gram rivet traveling at 0.9 c would have a
* * * * kinetic energy comparable to that of a small atomic bomb.

Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts the irrelevancy and idiocy of your last argument (Tom
Roberts: "the bug is always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate
upon impact") can be seen even by the silliest zombies in Einstein
criminal cult, and you are not among them. So the question is: Why are
you so dishonest Roberts Roberts?

I will be very dissapointed but since his last statement I think there
may be an issue of dishonesty here, something I did not want to accept
before.

However, I am thinking: how come so many people ware controlled by so
few and cannot voice their concerns.

The argument about all SR predictions being validated or so has
nothing to do. These are also the predictions of a general class of
theories that do not use contancy of c.

What's going on?

Mike

I have referred to Big Brother's story too many times but, in my view,
Orwell's explanation remains closest to the truth:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Is that maybe why there is a parallel effort to convince people that
reality is mind created?

In such reality, the bug can be dead and not dead, depending on
reference frame, as it is that cat in QM, dead and alive, both when
nobody is looking.

I think we need more psychiatric clinics than universities.

Mike

On May 15, 7:08 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On May 15, 3:58 pm, Mike wrote:



On May 15, 6:48 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On May 15, 4:37 am, Tom Roberts wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:

Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
Either the bug is dead smashed by the river or not
dead.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html

OK. That is a rather bad gedanken, because a) it assumes seriously
impossible properties of the rivet, and b) there is no inertial frame in
which the rivet REMAINS at rest. I have no desire to discuss it because
it is so bad. That's probably why I had forgotten it.

If you want to discuss the pole-barn paradox, be sure to use the version
that has equal-length barn and pole (in their respective rest frames),
with barn door 1 initially closed and door 2 initially open. The pole
enters through door 2, and immediately after the back of the pole passes
door 2 it is closed and then door 1 is opened (VERY short delay, VERY
fast doors). So the pole sails through without ever touching either
door, yet there was an instant in the barn frame when both doors were
closed and the (shortened) pole was between them. In the pole frame, of
course, this is described as door 1 opening before the front of the pole
reaches it, and there is a period of time during which both barn doors
are open and the (unshortened) pole slides through the (shortened) barn
with both doors open; after the back of the pole passes door 1 it closes
and the pole continues out of the barn.

My point is: some things are reasonable to assume in a gedanken, and
some are not. It is reasonable to assume that doors can open and close
arbitrarily quickly, because they need not really be physical doors. But
it is not reasonable to assume a rivet is prefectly rigid, because that
is inconsistent with SR (the speed of sound cannot exceed the speed of
light, which makes a perfectly rigid object impossible). And it is not
reasonable in a gedanken to expect the student to wrestle with
accelerating frames (such as that of the rigid rivet after its head
stops by hitting the wall).

Of course in the bug-and-rivet gedanken, if one does not
assume infinitely-rigid rivet and wall, the bug is
always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate upon
impact. A 10-gram rivet traveling at 0.9 c would have a
kinetic energy comparable to that of a small atomic bomb.

Tom Roberts

Roberts Roberts the irrelevancy and idiocy of your last argument (Tom
Roberts: "the bug is always crushed as the rivet and wall disintegrate
upon impact") can be seen even by the silliest zombies in Einstein
criminal cult, and you are not among them. So the question is: Why are
you so dishonest Roberts Roberts?

I will be very dissapointed but since his last statement I think there
may be an issue of dishonesty here, something I did not want to accept
before.

However, I am thinking: how come so many people ware controlled by so
few and cannot voice their concerns.

The argument about all SR predictions being validated or so has
nothing to do. These are also the predictions of a general class of
theories that do not use contancy of c.

What's going on?

Mike

I have referred to Big Brother's story too many times but, in my view,
Orwell's explanation remains closest to the truth:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/George Orwell "1984":
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev


Orwell wasn't off by all that much. Mike however seems in love with
you.
.. - BG