Prev: Brendan Behan (Captains and the Kings); James Joyce (Ulysses)
Next: A puzzle for the SRians
From: Brad Guth on 26 Jul 2010 19:20
On Jul 26, 5:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
> container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
> bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the
> Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
> Newton's emission theory of light:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/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."
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/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."
>
> If an infinitely long object CANNOT be trapped inside an infinitely
> short container, and if both the bug and the Einsteinian travelling
> with the rivet see the bug alive and kicking, then the Michelson-
> Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and
> refutes Einstein's relativity:
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
> evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
> universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
> relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
> RELATIVITY AND ITS ROOTS by Banesh Hoffmann
> "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
> in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
> principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
> far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
> particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
> And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
> particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
> relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
> Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
> local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
> resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
> particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
> introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
> obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...(a)yahoo.com

Supposedly while traveling along at 'c', looking directly forward or
backward you'd see nothing, however looking side to side or directly
up/down and anything within all 360 degrees worth of that sort of on-
edge or peripheral view of the stars would look perfectly normal,
because only those photons haven't been red/blue shifted. What
exactly does this interpretation mean?

~ BG
From: Pentcho Valev on 27 Jul 2010 00:49
An emitter on top of a tower of height h sends light towards the
ground. The light reaches the ground with speed c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
according to Newton's emission theory of light (an equation adopted by
Einstein in the period 1907-1915), and with speed c'=c(1+2gh/c^2)
according to Einstein's final version of general relativity.

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to
be 1+gh/c^2. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world this experimental result would confirm Newton's emission theory
of light and refute Einstein's final version of general relativity. In
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the result gloriously confirms any
version of Einstein's relativity while Newton's emission theory of
light is not worth mentioning.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the
Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
Newton's emission theory of light:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/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."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/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."

If an infinitely long object CANNOT be trapped inside an infinitely
short container, and if both the bug and the Einsteinian travelling
with the rivet see the bug alive and kicking, then the Michelson-
Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and
refutes Einstein's relativity:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
RELATIVITY AND ITS ROOTS by Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Sam Wormley on 27 Jul 2010 01:45
On 7/26/10 11:49 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> An emitter on top of a tower of height h sends light towards the
> ground. The light reaches the ground with speed c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
> according to Newton's emission theory of light (an equation adopted by
> Einstein in the period 1907-1915), and with speed c'=c(1+2gh/c^2)
> according to Einstein's final version of general relativity.
>
> In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to
> be 1+gh/c^2.




Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound�Rebka_experiment
From: Pentcho Valev on 28 Jul 2010 00:56
Cosmic-ray muons crashing into an obstacle quickly disintegrate.
Cosmic-ray muons that do not crash live longer. In Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world crashing muons are obviously analogous to the twin
at rest. Non-crashing muons are analogous to the travelling twin.
Conclusion (in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world): Einstein's
relativity correctly predicts that, when the travelling twin returns,
he is younger than the twin at rest.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

An emitter on top of a tower of height h sends light towards the
ground. The light reaches the ground with speed c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
according to Newton's emission theory of light (an equation adopted by
Einstein in the period 1907-1915), and with speed c'=c(1+2gh/c^2)
according to Einstein's final version of general relativity.

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to
be 1+gh/c^2. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world this experimental result would confirm Newton's emission theory
of light and refute Einstein's final version of general relativity. In
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the result gloriously confirms any
version of Einstein's relativity while Newton's emission theory of
light is not worth mentioning.

If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the
Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
Newton's emission theory of light:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/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."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/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."

If an infinitely long object CANNOT be trapped inside an infinitely
short container, and if both the bug and the Einsteinian travelling
with the rivet see the bug alive and kicking, then the Michelson-
Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and
refutes Einstein's relativity:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
RELATIVITY AND ITS ROOTS by Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Tom Roberts on 30 Jul 2010 09:52
GSS wrote:
> Let us assume that the gravitational mass of a planet is m_g and its
> inertial mass m_i, such that the ration m_g/m_i = k. [...]

This does nothing. If k is the same for all objects, it can ALWAYS be set to 1
by a suitable choice of units and/or the constants in the equations.

IOW: the equivalence principle does NOT imply "k=1" as you seem to think, it
merely implies that k is the same for all objects. You are free to choose units
or constants with which k!=1, but k will remain universal if the equivalence
principle holds. As we observe -- in the solar system we use the same units and
constants for all planets, in both NM and GR (both theories obey the equivalence
principle).


Tom Roberts
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Brendan Behan (Captains and the Kings); James Joyce (Ulysses)
Next: A puzzle for the SRians