A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 13th 08, 08:21 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

On Aug 13, 1:57*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:42*pm, PD wrote:



http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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."


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)..


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???


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?


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"...."


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.


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?


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


  #12  
Old August 13th 08, 10:12 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

On Aug 13, 9:21*pm, PD wrote:
On Aug 13, 1:57*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 13, 6:42*pm, PD wrote:


http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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."


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).


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???


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?


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"...."


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.


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?


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?


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

  #13  
Old August 13th 08, 11:01 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

On Aug 13, 4:12*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 13, 9:21*pm, PD wrote:



On Aug 13, 1:57*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:


On Aug 13, 6:42*pm, PD wrote:


http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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."


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).


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???


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?


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"...."


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.


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?


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?


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.


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


  #14  
Old August 13th 08, 11:41 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

Just on the point of absurdity. Is it absurd to suggest that an SI has
mass ? It seems pretty realistic to me.


On Aug 14, 7:12 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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


  #15  
Old August 14th 08, 06:50 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

Anyway, ,

So if quantum computers manages to utilise the atom, as a bit
recording device, where 1 integer can be stored using a single
atom . . .The total number of integers that can be used for any
number, even if in the most effient form such as. . .

9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9 etc etc. . .

Which is approx

1.59486 × 10^(55) kg / 1.660538782(83)×10-27 kg

After that, I agree that we could resort to other symbols which gave
meaning to numbers.

for example

K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K^K etc etc. . .

However, once you run out of numbers, you run out of numbers of
symbols. Beyond this, whetever it was that was recording will have
lost mathematical meaning.









  #16  
Old August 14th 08, 10:38 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

If say, we dedicated an atom to the storage for every second. . .

1.59486 × 10^(55) kg / 1.660538782(83)×10-27 kg

would represent the number of seconds recordable.
  #17  
Old August 14th 08, 01:13 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

That is if we were only using integers of 1 or 0. On the other second
hand, it would represent the number of places for a whole number. In
which case all integers would be 9. And still, we would need to reset
the count.


On Aug 14, 7:38 pm, Y wrote:
If say, we dedicated an atom to the storage for every second. . .

1.59486 × 10^(55) kg / 1.660538782(83)×10-27 kg

would represent the number of seconds recordable.


  #18  
Old August 14th 08, 01:18 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

To those people who are afraid by the consequences of everything I've
presented. Don't be. Its just a mathematical explanation. Its not the
end of the world at all.

On Aug 14, 10:13 pm, Y wrote:
That is if we were only using integers of 1 or 0. On the other second
hand, it would represent the number of places for a whole number. In
which case all integers would be 9. And still, we would need to reset
the count.

On Aug 14, 7:38 pm, Y wrote:

If say, we dedicated an atom to the storage for every second. . .


1.59486 × 10^(55) kg / 1.660538782(83)×10-27 kg


would represent the number of seconds recordable.


  #19  
Old August 14th 08, 08:11 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Y
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 39
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity


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.

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.



On Aug 14, 8:01 am, PD wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:12 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:



On Aug 13, 9:21 pm, PD wrote:


On Aug 13, 1:57 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:


On Aug 13, 6:42 pm, PD wrote:


http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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."


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).


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???


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?


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"...."


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.


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?


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?


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.


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


  #20  
Old August 14th 08, 08:18 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

On Aug 14, 2:11*pm, Y wrote:
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.

On Aug 14, 8:01 am, PD wrote:

On Aug 13, 4:12 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:


On Aug 13, 9:21 pm, PD wrote:


On Aug 13, 1:57 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:


On Aug 13, 6:42 pm, PD wrote:


http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...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."


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).


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???


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?


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"...."


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.


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?


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?


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.


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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Quantitative Drift Alignment Rob Johnson Amateur Astronomy 4 July 13th 08 09:46 PM
quantity totally calculates Alexandra's agent Ayman Alhadin Al Nami Amateur Astronomy 0 August 15th 07 05:57 AM
NASA has recently answered with a world press release to the prediction of a mega tsunami, created by a possible impact of a fragment of the comet SW-3 on MAY 25, 2006 in the Atlantic Ocean. This prediction, based on a clear and precise psychic commu [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 12 May 26th 06 06:50 PM
NASA has recently answered with a world press release to the prediction of a mega tsunami, created by a possible impact of a fragment of the comet SW-3 on MAY 25, 2006 in the Atlantic Ocean. This prediction, based on a clear and precise psychic commu [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 2 May 4th 06 08:56 PM
New prediction! Santana Misc 5 September 27th 05 08:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.