Quantitative Prediction of a Measurable Quantity

On Aug 14, 9:24*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Y wrote in message

*

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/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."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 14, 3:10*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 14, 9:24*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-



SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Y wrote in message

*

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/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."

Pentcho Valev


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

PD wrote in message

On Aug 14, 3:10 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 14, 9:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-



SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Y wrote in message



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/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."

Pentcho Valev


Note that I've already answered this, but that he wants to see what
you say.

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

On Aug 14, 10:29*pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
PD wrote:

On Aug 14, 3:10 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 14, 9:24 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-

SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Y wrote in message



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/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."

Pentcho Valev


Note that I've already answered this, but that he wants to see what
you say.

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

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

Those number of other things, which have been tested. Were they
objects with mass ?

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 also implies 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, no wonder 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.


On Aug 15, 5:44 am, PD 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.

On Aug 15, 5:44 am, PD 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.

Those number of other things, which have been tested. Were they
objects with mass ?

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.

Anyway back to the 10 atom universe. . .

Because this little universe is trying to survive counting seconds on
its parts, its life in seconds is as follows.

Lets say this were binary bits per atom (bit/atom). . .i.e each second
needed to be 1 or 0

1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 - it would now have run out of space to record
seconds. 10 seconds.

or

Lets say this were an integer per atom universe. . .i.e each second
needed to be 1 to 9

from begining

0000000001
to
9999999999 = maximum seconds


Lets say this were Symbol per atom universe. (replace Black with
Noir. . my appolgies)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 R where to us R = 10

R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 G where to us G = 29

R G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y where to us Y = 38

R G Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 B where to us B = 47

R G Y B 1 2 3 4 5 P where to us P = 56

R G Y B P 1 2 3 4 O where to us O = 64

R G Y B P O 1 2 3 C where to us C = 73

R G Y B P O C 1 2 M where to is M = 82

R G Y B P O C M 1 W where to us W = 91

R G Y B P O C M W N where to us N = 100


To us, we could continue counting at 101 from here. We also wouldn't
need numbers because we have the space to write

R = 10 G = 29 Y = 38 B = 47 P = 56 O = 64 C = 73 M = 82 W = 91 N =
100

But as you can see, the 10 atom universe @ 1 Symbol/atom has erased
the integer. So it did not keep a record of its rules regarding the
quantity of a second. The theory of inevitable lack of resource would
be the same for a 10^80atoms universe.

So heres a good Exam.

Physics Question 1. Difficult Level (very low)

What is the maximum recordable ammount of seconds in a 12 Atom
universe, where

Eternity = m(universe) / m(unit of record)


Mass of Atom = 1.6 x 10^(-27)

Recording unit = 1 atom per integer.

For extra points. . .

How many times more that the 12 Atom universe did your answer weigh if
one of
your integer's was measured to be = 2.15 X 10^(-13)kg's

Question 2. Difficult Level (low)

What is the maximum recordable ammount of seconds in a 12 Atom
universe, where

Eternity = m(universe) / m(unit of record)

Mass of Atom = 1.6 x 10^(-27)

Recording unit = 1 bit/atom.

For extra Marks . . .

How many times more times quicker or slower did the 12 Atom universe
run out of time, if your answer took 35.5 years to complete.