EINSTEINIANA AND REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM

[Pentcho Valev]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/

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."

The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false. In the era of Postscientism the compressed 80m long pole inside
the 40m long barn can only be a glorious manifestation of the validity
of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Uncle Al]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip crap]

1) http://ianparker.g3z.com/Relativity/
2) idiot

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
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."
The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false. In the era of Postscientism the compressed 80m long pole inside
the 40m long barn can only be a glorious manifestation of the validity
of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

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."

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence: the bug is both dead and alive.
Einstein's 1905 light postulate from which this conclusion is deduced
should be rejected as false.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "Let us consider a space-time domain in which no
gravitational fields exists relative to a reference-body K whose state
of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian reference-
body as regards the domain considered, and the results of the special
theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us suppose the same
domain referred to a second body of reference K', which is rotating
uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas, we shall
imagine K' to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which rotates
uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who is
sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts
outwards in a radial direction, and which would be interpreted as an
effect of inertia (centrifugal force) by an observer who was at rest
with respect to the original reference-body K......To start with, he
places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the
circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are
at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at
the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian
reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of
the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is
in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a
result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes
at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of
the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."

REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence. If Einstein had been honest, his
text would be: "According to a result obtained in Section XII, it
follows that either clock goes at a rate permanently slower than the
other clock". The only camouflage Einsteinians use in this case is
based on the fact that the clock placed "on the edge of the disc"
experiences some "gravitational field", a fact which, according to
Einsteiniana's perverse logic, implies that the reciprocal time
dilation following from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (either
clock runs slower than the other) should somehow become non-reciprocal
(the clock experiencing no gravitational field should become faster
than the clock experiencing a gravitational field). However clever
Einsteinians know that, by increasing the diameter of the disc and
keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one can reduce the
gravitational field to zero. Then another slight modification of the
thought experiment (the non-rotating clock should be placed in the
vicinity of the rotating periphery) makes the absurdity of the
"reciprocal" conclusion obvious. Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the
source of all such absurdities, should be rejected as false.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[PD]

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
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."
The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false. In the era of Postscientism the compressed 80m long pole inside
the 40m long barn can only be a glorious manifestation of the validity
of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

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."
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence: the bug is both dead and alive.
Einstein's 1905 light postulate from which this conclusion is deduced
should be rejected as false.

Poor web page by someone who does not understand the physics. The bug
is dead in both frames. There is no paradox.

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "Let us consider a space-time domain in which no
gravitational fields exists relative to a reference-body K whose state
of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian reference-
body as regards the domain considered, and the results of the special
theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us suppose the same
domain referred to a second body of reference K', which is rotating
uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas, we shall
imagine K' to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which rotates
uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who is
sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts
outwards in a radial direction, and which would be interpreted as an
effect of inertia (centrifugal force) by an observer who was at rest
with respect to the original reference-body K......To start with, he
places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the
circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are
at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at
the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian
reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of
the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is
in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a
result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes
at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of
the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence. If Einstein had been honest,

Sorry, no, you cannot attain reductio ad absurdum by substituting what
was really said with something you say instead, which then leads to a
contradiction. In the way that it was actually said, there is no
contradiction.

Post by Pentcho Valev
his
text would be: "According to a result obtained in Section XII, it
follows that either clock goes at a rate permanently slower than the
other clock". The only camouflage Einsteinians use in this case is
based on the fact that the clock placed "on the edge of the disc"
experiences some "gravitational field", a fact which, according to
Einsteiniana's perverse logic, implies that the reciprocal time
dilation following from Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (either
clock runs slower than the other) should somehow become non-reciprocal
(the clock experiencing no gravitational field should become faster
than the clock experiencing a gravitational field). However clever
Einsteinians know that, by increasing the diameter of the disc and
keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant, one can reduce the
gravitational field to zero. Then another slight modification of the
thought experiment (the non-rotating clock should be placed in the
vicinity of the rotating periphery) makes the absurdity of the
"reciprocal" conclusion obvious. Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the
source of all such absurdities, should be rejected as false.
Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by PD

Post by Pentcho Valev
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."
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence: the bug is both dead and alive.
Einstein's 1905 light postulate from which this conclusion is deduced
should be rejected as false.

Poor web page by someone who does not understand the physics. The bug
is dead in both frames. There is no paradox.

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "Let us consider a space-time domain in which no
gravitational fields exists relative to a reference-body K whose state
of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian reference-
body as regards the domain considered, and the results of the special
theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us suppose the same
domain referred to a second body of reference K', which is rotating
uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas, we shall
imagine K' to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which rotates
uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who is
sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts
outwards in a radial direction, and which would be interpreted as an
effect of inertia (centrifugal force) by an observer who was at rest
with respect to the original reference-body K......To start with, he
places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the
circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are
at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at
the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian
reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of
the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is
in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a
result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes
at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of
the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence. If Einstein had been honest,

Sorry, no, you cannot attain reductio ad absurdum by substituting what
was really said with something you say instead, which then leads to a
contradiction. In the way that it was actually said, there is no
contradiction.

Let us sing Clever Draper, let us sing:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divineEinstein.pdf

"If you see someone approach the speed of light,
his time slows down, it's true,
but if this guy looks back at you he might
say, the slower one is you
Even though you're standing relatively still,
you'll observe this change but will
yet appear to change as well,
and the truth is that both measurement are true,
cause from this guy's point of view
the moving one is you
And the reason is the speed of light, which is
the mother of all speeds,
and some pure deduction simply based on this
is all the open minded needs
To conclude that you are never standing still,
compared to someone else you will
still be moving anyway,
and the truth is that all measurements are true
cause from some guy's point of view
the moving one is you
However, one thing's always the same,
in every single reference frame
the speed of light remains
a constant to us all, yeah!
The truth is that all measurements are true,
cause from some guy's point of view,
the moving one is you"

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[PD]

Post by Pentcho Valev

Post by PD

Post by Pentcho Valev
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."
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence: the bug is both dead and alive.
Einstein's 1905 light postulate from which this conclusion is deduced
should be rejected as false.

Poor web page by someone who does not understand the physics. The bug
is dead in both frames. There is no paradox.

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "Let us consider a space-time domain in which no
gravitational fields exists relative to a reference-body K whose state
of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a Galileian reference-
body as regards the domain considered, and the results of the special
theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us suppose the same
domain referred to a second body of reference K', which is rotating
uniformly with respect to K. In order to fix our ideas, we shall
imagine K' to be in the form of a plane circular disc, which rotates
uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer who is
sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts
outwards in a radial direction, and which would be interpreted as an
effect of inertia (centrifugal force) by an observer who was at rest
with respect to the original reference-body K......To start with, he
places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the
circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are
at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at
the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian
reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of
the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is
in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation. According to a
result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes
at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of
the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM par excellence. If Einstein had been honest,

Sorry, no, you cannot attain reductio ad absurdum by substituting what
was really said with something you say instead, which then leads to a
contradiction. In the way that it was actually said, there is no
contradiction.

http://youtu.be/5PkLLXhONvQ
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divineEinstein.pdf
http://youtu.be/7Z7GtgfTZ6w
"If you see someone approach the speed of light,
his time slows down, it's true,
but if this guy looks back at you he might
say, the slower one is you
Even though you're standing relatively still,
you'll observe this change but will
yet appear to change as well,
and the truth is that both measurement are true,
cause from this guy's point of view
the moving one is you
And the reason is the speed of light, which is
the mother of all speeds,
and some pure deduction simply based on this
is all the open minded needs
To conclude that you are never standing still,
compared to someone else you will
still be moving anyway,
and the truth is that all measurements are true
cause from some guy's point of view
the moving one is you
However, one thing's always the same,
in every single reference frame
the speed of light remains
a constant to us all, yeah!
The truth is that all measurements are true,
cause from some guy's point of view,
the moving one is you"
Pentcho Valev

There is nothing clever about any of this. It's absolutely
straightforward.
I know you don't want to believe it, and so you insist that it MUST be
a trick, that it CAN'T be real, and anyone who tries to show you
what's in the box MUST be trying to trick you further.
That's fine. Enjoy your distrust. I'm sure it will get you far.

PD

[Gordon Stangler]

Pentcho,

In one frame, the pole is length contracted to fit inside the barn,
and the barn doors are closed simultaneously, trapping the pole
inside. The doors are then opened, allowing the pole to pass through.

In the other frame, the barn is length dilated, but the barn doors are
closed, first one, then the other, and opened one after another,
<different times>. We have to drop simultaneity in order to get the
pole through the barn.
Hope this helps.

[Androcles]

Post by Gordon Stangler
Pentcho,
In one frame, the pole is length contracted to fit inside the barn,
and the barn doors are closed simultaneously, trapping the pole
inside. The doors are then opened, allowing the pole to pass through.
In the other frame, the barn is length dilated, but the barn doors are
closed, first one, then the other, and opened one after another,
<different times>. We have to drop simultaneity in order to get the
pole through the barn.
Hope this helps.

Suppose the length of the barn is 10m, and the length of the
pole is also 10m when at rest in the barn.
Being a barn, it is closed at one end and the door is closed
as the pole enters. It will fit when at rest.

Calculate the length of the pole when moving at 0.866c.

xi = (x-vt)/sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)
Loading Image...

xi = (10m)/sqrt (1-0.866^2/1^2)
= (10m)/sqrt (1-0.75)
= (10m)/sqrt (0.25)
= (10m)/0.5
= 20m
It will not fit until it is brought to a sudden stop.

Your idiot drool doesn't help at all, you are a fuckwit.
Why do you incompetent fuckin' lunatics call it length
"contraction"?

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Post by Androcles

Post by Gordon Stangler
Pentcho,
In one frame, the pole is length contracted to fit inside the barn,
and the barn doors are closed simultaneously, trapping the pole
inside. The doors are then opened, allowing the pole to pass through.
In the other frame, the barn is length dilated, but the barn doors are
closed, first one, then the other, and opened one after another,
<different times>. We have to drop simultaneity in order to get the
pole through the barn.
Hope this helps.

Suppose the length of the barn is 10m, and the length of the
pole is also 10m when at rest in the barn.
Being a barn, it is closed at one end and the door is closed
as the pole enters. It will fit when at rest.
Calculate the length of the pole when moving at 0.866c.
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/x'=x-vt.gif
xi = (10m)/sqrt (1-0.866^2/1^2)
= (10m)/sqrt (1-0.75)
= (10m)/sqrt (0.25)
= (10m)/0.5
= 20m
It will not fit until it is brought to a sudden stop.
Your idiot drool doesn't help at all, you are a fuckwit.
Why do you incompetent fuckin' lunatics call it length
"contraction"?

No, imbecile, you don't understand the meaning of the variables.

If you use the equation
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2),
you have two events:
Event_1:
(x1,t1) = (0,0)
(xi1,tau1) = (0,0)
Event_2:
(x2,t2) = (x,t)
(xi2,tau2) = (xi,tau)

When you calculate
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)
with
x = 10
and
t = 0,
you measure the endpoints x1 and x2 simultaneously in the rod's rest
frame, so you have xi1 and xi2 at DIFFERENT times
tau1 = 0
and
tau2 = tau.

Do you also measure the length of a moving train by subtracting the
measured distances to the front and the rear at different times?

Are you some kind of retired engineer or something?
What a dope :-)

Dirk Vdm

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Post by Gordon Stangler
Pentcho,
In one frame, the pole is length contracted to fit inside the barn,
and the barn doors are closed simultaneously, trapping the pole
inside. The doors are then opened, allowing the pole to pass through.
In the other frame, the barn is length dilated, but the barn doors are
closed, first one, then the other, and opened one after another,
<different times>. We have to drop simultaneity in order to get the
pole through the barn.
Hope this helps.

Adrocles sucked you into alt.morons - a little trick he copied from me.
He is one of the worst crackpots on the block and he imitates the ones
he hates most.

Check him out at
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=androcles

Dirk Vdm

[Gordon Stangler]

On Jun 12, 4:30 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<snip>

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Adrocles sucked you into alt.morons - a little trick he copied from me.
He is one of the worst crackpots on the block and he imitates the ones
he hates most.
Check him out at
   http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=an...
Dirk Vdm

Thank you for the tip. I noticed my post didn't show up here, and I
was wondering where it went.

[Androcles]

"Gordon Stangler" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5e09bb8d-4541-466f-a54e-***@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 12, 4:30 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<snip>

Post by Dirk Van de moortel
Adrocles sucked you into alt.morons - a little trick he copied from me.
He is one of the worst crackpots on the block and he imitates the ones
he hates most.
Check him out at
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Search/searchresult.html?sw=an...
Dirk Vdm

Thank you for the tip. I noticed my post didn't show up here, and I
was wondering where it went.

========================================
Sucker!
Of course it won't change your pathetic incompetence at basic algebra,
or Dork Van de merde the local village idiot's.

[Gordon Stangler]

Andro,

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Gordon Stangler
View profile
More options Jun 12, 4:08 pm
Newsgroups: alt.morons
From: Gordon Stangler <***@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 12 2009 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: EINSTEINIANA AND REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Jun 12, 3:53 pm, "Androcles" <***@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Post by Androcles

Post by Gordon Stangler
Pentcho,
In one frame, the pole is length contracted to fit inside the barn,
and the barn doors are closed simultaneously, trapping the pole
inside. The doors are then opened, allowing the pole to pass through.
In the other frame, the barn is length dilated, but the barn doors are
closed, first one, then the other, and opened one after another,
<different times>. We have to drop simultaneity in order to get the
pole through the barn.
Hope this helps.

Suppose the length of the barn is 10m, and the length of the
pole is also 10m when at rest in the barn.
Being a barn, it is closed at one end and the door is closed
as the pole enters. It will fit when at rest.
Calculate the length of the pole when moving at 0.866c.
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/x'=x-vt.gif
xi = (10m)/sqrt (1-0.866^2/1^2)
= (10m)/sqrt (1-0.75)
= (10m)/sqrt (0.25)
= (10m)/0.5
= 20m
It will not fit until it is brought to a sudden stop.
Your idiot drool doesn't help at all, you are a fuckwit.
Why do you incompetent fuckin' lunatics call it length
"contraction"?

You multiply by gamma inverse to get length contraction, gamma to get
time dilation.
xi = 10m * sqrt(0.25) = 10m * 0.5 = 5m

I posit that you are deluded, or willfully ignorant of basic
mathematics and dimensional analysis. I doubt that you can't even
hold a conversation without resorting to childish insults.

[Androcles]

Post by Gordon Stangler
Andro,
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Gordon Stangler
View profile
More options Jun 12, 4:08 pm
Newsgroups: alt.morons
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Jun 12 2009 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: EINSTEINIANA AND REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Post by Androcles

Post by Gordon Stangler
Pentcho,
In one frame, the pole is length contracted to fit inside the barn,
and the barn doors are closed simultaneously, trapping the pole
inside. The doors are then opened, allowing the pole to pass through.
In the other frame, the barn is length dilated, but the barn doors are
closed, first one, then the other, and opened one after another,
<different times>. We have to drop simultaneity in order to get the
pole through the barn.
Hope this helps.

Suppose the length of the barn is 10m, and the length of the
pole is also 10m when at rest in the barn.
Being a barn, it is closed at one end and the door is closed
as the pole enters. It will fit when at rest.
Calculate the length of the pole when moving at 0.866c.
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt( 1-v^2/c^2)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/x'=x-vt.gif
xi = (10m)/sqrt (1-0.866^2/1^2)
= (10m)/sqrt (1-0.75)
= (10m)/sqrt (0.25)
= (10m)/0.5
= 20m
It will not fit until it is brought to a sudden stop.
Your idiot drool doesn't help at all, you are a fuckwit.
Why do you incompetent fuckin' lunatics call it length
"contraction"?

You multiply by gamma inverse to get length contraction, gamma to get
time dilation.
xi = 10m * sqrt(0.25) = 10m * 0.5 = 5m

Excuse me, but I was using Einstein's relativity, not Stangler's relativity,
as shown here:
Loading Image...

Post by Gordon Stangler
I posit that you are deluded, or willfully ignorant of basic
mathematics and dimensional analysis. I doubt that you can't even
hold a conversation without resorting to childish insults.

BTW,
tau = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Substituting for x its value,
tau = (t-v (vt) /c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= (t- tv^2 /c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= t (1- v^2 /c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

You multiply by gamma inverse to get Einstein's time contraction
and gamma to get Einstein's length dilation.

"It seems that Light is propagated in time, spending in its passage from
the sun to us about seven Minutes of time:" -- DEFIN. II of Opticks Or,
A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of
Light - Sir Isaac Newton.


"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

Einstein plays the part, physically, of the clown in Bozo's Circus, with
Stangler as his stooge.

You can posit and doubt all you want to, you'll still be a deluded
and wilfully ignorant bigot that can't manage the simplest algebra
anymore than your tin god whom you now disagree with could.
That's not a childish insult either, it's a fact.
In 1895 Einstein failed an examination that would have allowed him to study
for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische
Hochschule in Zurich. Ref:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Einstein.html

Not too many people have heard of Stangler's relativity.

[PD]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
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."
The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false.

Why? There is no contradiction here. There are no measurably
distinguishable outcomes here where the claim is "A will be observed"
and "A will NOT be observed". Reductio ad absurdum requires there to
be internal contradiction.

A surprise, counter to your intuitive expectations, is not a
contradiction. It is just a surprise, much as would be finding a
spider monkey in an elevator. But a spider monkey in an elevator is
not a contradiction, either.

Moreover, an equivalent experimental result has been confirmed. There
is nothing in nature that really occurs that can ever be called a
contradiction.

PD

Post by Pentcho Valev
In the era of Postscientism the compressed 80m long pole inside
the 40m long barn can only be a glorious manifestation of the validity
of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
Pentcho Valev

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Post by PD

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
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."
The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false.

Why? There is no contradiction here. There are no measurably
distinguishable outcomes here where the claim is "A will be observed"
and "A will NOT be observed". Reductio ad absurdum requires there to
be internal contradiction.
A surprise, counter to your intuitive expectations, is not a
contradiction. It is just a surprise, much as would be finding a
spider monkey in an elevator. But a spider monkey in an elevator is
not a contradiction, either.
Moreover, an equivalent experimental result has been confirmed. There
is nothing in nature that really occurs that can ever be called a
contradiction.

A human being as dumb as a spider comes pretty close though.

Dirk Vdm

[Slartibartfast]

You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end,
that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch.

Of course "simultaneously" has not been carefully defined here.

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.

Of course an instant is a time of zero duration.

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.

Of course these doors should open and close faster than light.

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.

Of course the door can't stand the kinetic energy of the rod.

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."

Of course this is Disneyworld.

The premise on which this conclusion is based is Einstein's 1905 light
postulate so if rationality in science had not been destroyed,
Einsteinians would have presented the above deduction as REDUCTIO AD
ABSURDUM and, accordingly, would have rejected the light postulate as
false. In the era of Postscientism the compressed 80m long pole inside
the 40m long barn can only be a glorious manifestation of the validity
of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Ykes !