Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390794 > unrolled thread

a thought on the garage paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  a thought on the garage paradox RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-24 15:31 -0700
    Re: a thought on the garage paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 02:52 +0200
      Re: a thought on the garage paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-24 23:35 -0700
        Re: a thought on the garage paradox Python <python@org.invalid> - 2016-08-25 12:20 +0200
          Re: a thought on the garage paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-25 03:33 -0700
            Re: a thought on the garage paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 19:55 -0700
              Re: a thought on the garage paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 19:59 -0700
                Re: a thought on the garage paradox John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:02 -0700
        Re: a thought on the garage paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-29 15:49 -0700
          Re: a thought on the garage paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 10:34 +0200
            Re: a thought on the garage paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-30 01:48 -0700
              Re: a thought on the garage paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 11:38 -0700
                Re: a thought on the garage paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-30 23:13 -0700
                  Re: a thought on the garage paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 11:51 -0700
                    Re: a thought on the garage paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-01 22:08 +0200
                      Re: a thought on the garage paradox JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 15:25 -0700
      Re: a thought on the garage paradox RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 20:55 -0700
        Re: a thought on the garage paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 06:44 +0200
        Re: a thought on the garage paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 07:05 +0200
        Re: a thought on the garage paradox Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 07:48 +0200
    Re: a thought on the garage paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 22:35 +1000
      Re: a thought on the garage paradox "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 08:51 -0700
        Re: a thought on the garage paradox "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 09:05 -0700
          Re: a thought on the garage paradox "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-28 09:26 -0700
      Re: a thought on the garage paradox RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 15:04 -0700
        Re: a thought on the garage paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 12:42 +1000
          Re: a thought on the garage paradox RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 14:28 -0700
            Re: a thought on the garage paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 11:23 +1000
              Re: a thought on the garage paradox benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-30 21:45 -0400
                Re: a thought on the garage paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 12:20 +1000
                  Re: a thought on the garage paradox mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-30 23:15 -0700
                  Re: a thought on the garage paradox RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 11:12 -0700
                    Re: a thought on the garage paradox Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-02 13:46 +1000
    a thought on the garage paradox "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 08:31 -0700
      Re: a thought on the garage paradox Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-09-02 19:03 +0200
        Re: a thought on the garage paradox "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 16:58 -0700
          Re: a thought on the garage paradox "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 19:32 -0700
            Re: a thought on the garage paradox "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 20:00 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#391109

On 25/08/2016 8:31 AM, RichD wrote:
> Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -
>
> The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,
> or not, the garage is too shallow, blah blah, the usual.
>
> To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:
>
> The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
> open, the car approaches from the south.
> The garage's center point is clearly marked.  The
> driver is centered within the vehicle.  Two cameras
> are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.
>
> I)    In the garage frame:
>     The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
> Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
> passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.
>
>
> II)   In the Corvette's frame:
>     The car is stationary, the garage approaches
> (so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
> front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
> opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
> the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
> amount.  The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
> crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.
>
> So far, so standard.
>
> Now, what do the cameras record?  These are unique
> to both frames, nothing 'relative' there!  (I rule
> out the 'many worlds' interpretation of QM)  In
> particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
> driver hits the center point?
>
> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
> to the garage.  Though, from the car's frame, this is
> counter-intuitive, it must be so, for logical consistency.
>
> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
> outside the garage.
>
> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
> Am I missing something here?
>
> --
> Rich
>
You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for light to 
get from the event being observed and arriving at the camera. Usually, 
one ignores such things, but at the kinds of speeds we're talking about 
here, it's important.

I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with 
cameras some while back

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>

and showed that everything works out fine.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391115

Sylvia Else wrote:

- show quoted text -
You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for light to 
get from the event being observed and arriving at the camera. Usually, 
one ignores such things, but at the kinds of speeds we're talking about 
here, it's important. 

I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with 
cameras some while back 

<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ> 

and showed that everything works out fine. 

Sylvia. 

When the light from Distant Events like supernova arrived HERE, they would the event would be temporally "Smeared" if c is not invariant , eliminating any and all "ballistic" light theories and requiring a real moving fabric of space time moving at c, transporting the photons

A three dimensional fabric moving radially at c both inward and outward at the same time. 

 http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391118

When the light from Distant Events like supernova arrived HERE, the event would be temporally "Smeared" if c is not invariant , eliminating any and all "ballistic" light theories and requiring a real moving fabric of space time moving at c, transporting the photons 

A three dimensional fabric moving radially at c both inward and outward at the same time. 

http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg 

If this structure (http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg) is stretched over the surface of this (http://oi68.tinypic.com/2lcxw7t.jpg) both inward & outward transit could simultaneously be permitted on the surface of the Schwarz-P minimal surface, just as light transits our spacetime. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391120

(2 997.92458 * tau)^0.5 = 137.24618637

(2 997.92458 * tau * 0.99693942)^0.5 = 137.035998956

(2 988.7492 * tau)^0.5 = 137.03599914

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391191

On August 28, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -
>> The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,
>> or not, the garage is too shallow, blah blah, the usual.
>> To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:
>> The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
>> open, the car approaches from the south.
>> The garage's center point is clearly marked.  The
>> driver is centered within the vehicle.  Two cameras
>> are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.
>> I)    In the garage frame:
>>     The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
>> Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
>> passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.
>>
>> II)   In the Corvette's frame:
>>     The car is stationary, the garage approaches
>> (so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
>> front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
>> opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
>> the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
>> amount.  The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
>> crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.
>> So far, so standard.
>> Now, what do the cameras record?  These are unique
>> to both frames, nothing 'relative' there!  
>> In particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
>> driver hits the center point?
>> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
>> to the garage... it must be so, for logical consistency.
>> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
>> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
>> outside the garage.
>> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
>
> You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for 
> light to get from the event being observed and arriving at the 
> camera. 

huh?  
Of course I do, that's the crux of the biscuit.

> I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with 
> cameras some while back
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>
 
> and showed that everything works out fine.

Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.  
Mine is precisely stated. 

Re-write it, then we can compare apples vs. apples.

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391199

On 30/08/2016 8:04 AM, RichD wrote:
> On August 28, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -
>>> The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,
>>> or not, the garage is too shallow, blah blah, the usual.
>>> To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:
>>> The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
>>> open, the car approaches from the south.
>>> The garage's center point is clearly marked.  The
>>> driver is centered within the vehicle.  Two cameras
>>> are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.
>>> I)    In the garage frame:
>>>      The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
>>> Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
>>> passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.
>>>
>>> II)   In the Corvette's frame:
>>>      The car is stationary, the garage approaches
>>> (so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
>>> front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
>>> opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
>>> the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
>>> amount.  The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
>>> crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.
>>> So far, so standard.
>>> Now, what do the cameras record?  These are unique
>>> to both frames, nothing 'relative' there!
>>> In particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
>>> driver hits the center point?
>>> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
>>> to the garage... it must be so, for logical consistency.
>>> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
>>> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
>>> outside the garage.
>>> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
>>
>> You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for
>> light to get from the event being observed and arriving at the
>> camera.
>
> huh?
> Of course I do, that's the crux of the biscuit.
>
>> I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
>> cameras some while back
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>
>
>> and showed that everything works out fine.
>
> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.

It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between 
the doors, and the the ones attached to the pole are a distance 40 * 
sqrt(3/4) metres behind the centre of the pole.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391260

On August 29, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -
>>>> The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,
>>>> or not, the garage is too shallow, the usual.
>>>> To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:
>>>> The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
>>>> open, the car approaches from the south.
>>>> The garage's center point is clearly marked.  The
>>>> driver is centered within the vehicle.  Two cameras
>>>> are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.
>>>> I)    In the garage frame:
>>>>      The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
>>>> Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
>>>> passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.
>>>> II)   In the Corvette's frame:
>>>>      The car is stationary, the garage approaches
>>>> (so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
>>>> front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
>>>> opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
>>>> the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
>>>> amount.  The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
>>>> crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.
>>>> So far, so standard.
>>>> Now, what do the cameras record?  
>>>> In particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
>>>> driver hits the center point?
>>>> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
>>>> to the garage... it must be so, for logical consistency.
>>>> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
>>>> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
>>>> outside the garage.
>>>> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
>
>>> You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for
>>> light to get from the event being observed and arriving at the
>>> camera.
>
>> huh?
>> Of course I do, that's the crux of the biscuit.
>
>>> I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
>>> cameras some while back
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>
>>> and showed that everything works out fine.
>
>> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
> 
> It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between 
> the doors, 

No it doesn't:
"...  attach video cameras to the barn and to the 
pole (a pair each, pointing towards the opposite ends of the barn and 
pole respectively)" 

That's "clear", only if a reader hallucinates alongside you.


> and the the ones attached to the pole are a distance 40 * 
> sqrt(3/4) metres behind the centre of the pole.

... after some tortured arithmetic.
 
And your example isn't symmetrical, as mine clearly is, 
hence doesn't answer my point of asymmetry in the result.
Just some hand waving about a barn and some cameras.


--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391265

On 31/08/2016 7:28 AM, RichD wrote:
> On August 29, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -
>>>>> The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,
>>>>> or not, the garage is too shallow, the usual.
>>>>> To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:
>>>>> The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
>>>>> open, the car approaches from the south.
>>>>> The garage's center point is clearly marked.  The
>>>>> driver is centered within the vehicle.  Two cameras
>>>>> are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.
>>>>> I)    In the garage frame:
>>>>>       The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
>>>>> Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
>>>>> passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.
>>>>> II)   In the Corvette's frame:
>>>>>       The car is stationary, the garage approaches
>>>>> (so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
>>>>> front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
>>>>> opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
>>>>> the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
>>>>> amount.  The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
>>>>> crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.
>>>>> So far, so standard.
>>>>> Now, what do the cameras record?
>>>>> In particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
>>>>> driver hits the center point?
>>>>> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
>>>>> to the garage... it must be so, for logical consistency.
>>>>> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
>>>>> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
>>>>> outside the garage.
>>>>> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
>>
>>>> You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for
>>>> light to get from the event being observed and arriving at the
>>>> camera.
>>
>>> huh?
>>> Of course I do, that's the crux of the biscuit.
>>
>>>> I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
>>>> cameras some while back
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>
>>>> and showed that everything works out fine.
>>
>>> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
>>
>> It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between
>> the doors,
>
> No it doesn't:
> "...  attach video cameras to the barn and to the
> pole (a pair each, pointing towards the opposite ends of the barn and
> pole respectively)"
>
> That's "clear", only if a reader hallucinates alongside you.
>
>
>> and the the ones attached to the pole are a distance 40 *
>> sqrt(3/4) metres behind the centre of the pole.
>
> ... after some tortured arithmetic.
>
> And your example isn't symmetrical, as mine clearly is,
> hence doesn't answer my point of asymmetry in the result.
> Just some hand waving about a barn and some cameras.
>
>
> --
> Rich
>

If you can't discuss this without being aggressive, I can't see why I 
should bother with you. By all means go on being mistaken, it's no skin 
off my nose.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391267

On 8/30/2016 9:23 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 31/08/2016 7:28 AM, RichD wrote:
>> On August 29, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -
>>>>>> The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,
>>>>>> or not, the garage is too shallow, the usual.
>>>>>> To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:
>>>>>> The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
>>>>>> open, the car approaches from the south.
>>>>>> The garage's center point is clearly marked.  The
>>>>>> driver is centered within the vehicle.  Two cameras
>>>>>> are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.
>>>>>> I)    In the garage frame:
>>>>>>       The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
>>>>>> Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
>>>>>> passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.
>>>>>> II)   In the Corvette's frame:
>>>>>>       The car is stationary, the garage approaches
>>>>>> (so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
>>>>>> front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
>>>>>> opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
>>>>>> the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
>>>>>> amount.  The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
>>>>>> crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.
>>>>>> So far, so standard.
>>>>>> Now, what do the cameras record?
>>>>>> In particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
>>>>>> driver hits the center point?
>>>>>> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
>>>>>> to the garage... it must be so, for logical consistency.
>>>>>> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
>>>>>> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
>>>>>> outside the garage.
>>>>>> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
>>>
>>>>> You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for
>>>>> light to get from the event being observed and arriving at the
>>>>> camera.
>>>
>>>> huh?
>>>> Of course I do, that's the crux of the biscuit.
>>>
>>>>> I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
>>>>> cameras some while back
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>
>>>>>
>>>>> and showed that everything works out fine.
>>>
>>>> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
>>>
>>> It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between
>>> the doors,
>>
>> No it doesn't:
>> "...  attach video cameras to the barn and to the
>> pole (a pair each, pointing towards the opposite ends of the barn and
>> pole respectively)"
>>
>> That's "clear", only if a reader hallucinates alongside you.
>>
>>
>>> and the the ones attached to the pole are a distance 40 *
>>> sqrt(3/4) metres behind the centre of the pole.
>>
>> ... after some tortured arithmetic.
>>
>> And your example isn't symmetrical, as mine clearly is,
>> hence doesn't answer my point of asymmetry in the result.
>> Just some hand waving about a barn and some cameras.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>>
>
> If you can't discuss this without being aggressive, I can't see why I
> should bother with you. By all means go on being mistaken, it's no skin
> off my nose.
>
> Sylvia.

Come on Sylvia. Quit pretending you don't care. There is a lot at stake 
here: The "who is smarter than Einstein" prize for 2016!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391268

On 31/08/2016 11:45 AM, benj wrote:
> On 8/30/2016 9:23 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 31/08/2016 7:28 AM, RichD wrote:
>>> On August 29, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -
>>>>>>> The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,
>>>>>>> or not, the garage is too shallow, the usual.
>>>>>>> To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:
>>>>>>> The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
>>>>>>> open, the car approaches from the south.
>>>>>>> The garage's center point is clearly marked.  The
>>>>>>> driver is centered within the vehicle.  Two cameras
>>>>>>> are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.
>>>>>>> I)    In the garage frame:
>>>>>>>       The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
>>>>>>> Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
>>>>>>> passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.
>>>>>>> II)   In the Corvette's frame:
>>>>>>>       The car is stationary, the garage approaches
>>>>>>> (so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
>>>>>>> front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
>>>>>>> opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
>>>>>>> the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
>>>>>>> amount.  The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
>>>>>>> crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.
>>>>>>> So far, so standard.
>>>>>>> Now, what do the cameras record?
>>>>>>> In particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
>>>>>>> driver hits the center point?
>>>>>>> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
>>>>>>> to the garage... it must be so, for logical consistency.
>>>>>>> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
>>>>>>> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
>>>>>>> outside the garage.
>>>>>>> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
>>>>
>>>>>> You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for
>>>>>> light to get from the event being observed and arriving at the
>>>>>> camera.
>>>>
>>>>> huh?
>>>>> Of course I do, that's the crux of the biscuit.
>>>>
>>>>>> I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
>>>>>> cameras some while back
>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and showed that everything works out fine.
>>>>
>>>>> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
>>>>
>>>> It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between
>>>> the doors,
>>>
>>> No it doesn't:
>>> "...  attach video cameras to the barn and to the
>>> pole (a pair each, pointing towards the opposite ends of the barn and
>>> pole respectively)"
>>>
>>> That's "clear", only if a reader hallucinates alongside you.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and the the ones attached to the pole are a distance 40 *
>>>> sqrt(3/4) metres behind the centre of the pole.
>>>
>>> ... after some tortured arithmetic.
>>>
>>> And your example isn't symmetrical, as mine clearly is,
>>> hence doesn't answer my point of asymmetry in the result.
>>> Just some hand waving about a barn and some cameras.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich
>>>
>>
>> If you can't discuss this without being aggressive, I can't see why I
>> should bother with you. By all means go on being mistaken, it's no skin
>> off my nose.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Come on Sylvia. Quit pretending you don't care. There is a lot at stake
> here: The "who is smarter than Einstein" prize for 2016!

Well, he might think so.

I find it difficult to express just how much I despise people who use 
aggression as a debating tactic.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391278

W dniu środa, 31 sierpnia 2016 04:20:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Sylvia Else napisał:
> On 31/08/2016 11:45 AM, benj wrote:
> > On 8/30/2016 9:23 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 31/08/2016 7:28 AM, RichD wrote:
> >>> On August 29, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>> Let's consider the Corvette in the garage scenario, again -
> >>>>>>> The Vette drives through at high speed, it fits inside,
> >>>>>>> or not, the garage is too shallow, the usual.
> >>>>>>> To be specific, irrespective of particular numbers:
> >>>>>>> The garage doors are oriented north-south, normally
> >>>>>>> open, the car approaches from the south.
> >>>>>>> The garage's center point is clearly marked.  The
> >>>>>>> driver is centered within the vehicle.  Two cameras
> >>>>>>> are posted at the driver's seat, facing fore and aft.
> >>>>>>> I)    In the garage frame:
> >>>>>>>       The car approaches, enters, then completely inside.
> >>>>>>> Both doors close simultaneously at the moment the driver
> >>>>>>> passes the center, then very quickly open, and the car transits.
> >>>>>>> II)   In the Corvette's frame:
> >>>>>>>       The car is stationary, the garage approaches
> >>>>>>> (so to speak), the open front door rolls over the
> >>>>>>> front fender, the rear door closes, then quickly
> >>>>>>> opens. The driver passes the center; at this moment,
> >>>>>>> the car extends through both open doorways, by equal
> >>>>>>> amount.  The Vette continues forward, the rear fender
> >>>>>>> crosses through the front doorway, which then closes, etc.
> >>>>>>> So far, so standard.
> >>>>>>> Now, what do the cameras record?
> >>>>>>> In particular, what goes on film, at the instant the
> >>>>>>> driver hits the center point?
> >>>>>>> Facing north, the camera sees the front fender interior
> >>>>>>> to the garage... it must be so, for logical consistency.
> >>>>>>> However, facing south, I don't see any such tautology;
> >>>>>>> it appears the rear fender may be seen either in or
> >>>>>>> outside the garage.
> >>>>>>> Thus the analysis indicates an unexpected asymmetry.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> You don't seem to made any allowance for the time it takes for
> >>>>>> light to get from the event being observed and arriving at the
> >>>>>> camera.
> >>>>
> >>>>> huh?
> >>>>> Of course I do, that's the crux of the biscuit.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I posted an mathematical analysis of the barn and pole paradox with
> >>>>>> cameras some while back
> >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/iuBoRUD4-kE/bF0BsiTDWAUJ>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and showed that everything works out fine.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
> >>>>
> >>>> It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between
> >>>> the doors,
> >>>
> >>> No it doesn't:
> >>> "...  attach video cameras to the barn and to the
> >>> pole (a pair each, pointing towards the opposite ends of the barn and
> >>> pole respectively)"
> >>>
> >>> That's "clear", only if a reader hallucinates alongside you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> and the the ones attached to the pole are a distance 40 *
> >>>> sqrt(3/4) metres behind the centre of the pole.
> >>>
> >>> ... after some tortured arithmetic.
> >>>
> >>> And your example isn't symmetrical, as mine clearly is,
> >>> hence doesn't answer my point of asymmetry in the result.
> >>> Just some hand waving about a barn and some cameras.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Rich
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you can't discuss this without being aggressive, I can't see why I
> >> should bother with you. By all means go on being mistaken, it's no skin
> >> off my nose.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Come on Sylvia. Quit pretending you don't care. There is a lot at stake
> > here: The "who is smarter than Einstein" prize for 2016!
> 
> Well, he might think so.
> 
> I find it difficult to express just how much I despise people who use 
> aggression as a debating tactic.

Unless, of course, they are by your side.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391366

On August 30, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
>
>>>>> It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between
>>>>> the doors,
>
>>>> No it doesn't:
>>>> "...  attach video cameras to the barn and to the
>>>> pole (a pair each, pointing towards the opposite ends of the barn and
>>>> pole respectively)"
>>>> That's "clear", only if a reader hallucinates alongside you.
>>>> And your example isn't symmetrical, as mine clearly is,
>>>> hence doesn't answer my point of asymmetry in the result.
>
>>> If you can't discuss this without being aggressive, I can't see why I
>>> should bother with you. 
>
>> Come on Sylvia. Quit pretending you don't care. There is a lot at stake
>> here: The "who is smarter than Einstein" prize for 2016!
> 
> I find it difficult to express just how much I despise people who use 
> aggression as a debating tactic.

"All you care about is who's right, the FACTS, but what 
about FEELINGS, you brute?  You never consider MY needs, 
that's what this argument is REALLY about!"

She argues just like...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymmRnKaTEr8

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391398

On 2/09/2016 4:12 AM, RichD wrote:
> On August 30, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> Your memo is vague on camera placement, and number.
>>
>>>>>> It clearly states that the ones attached to the barn are midway between
>>>>>> the doors,
>>
>>>>> No it doesn't:
>>>>> "...  attach video cameras to the barn and to the
>>>>> pole (a pair each, pointing towards the opposite ends of the barn and
>>>>> pole respectively)"
>>>>> That's "clear", only if a reader hallucinates alongside you.
>>>>> And your example isn't symmetrical, as mine clearly is,
>>>>> hence doesn't answer my point of asymmetry in the result.
>>
>>>> If you can't discuss this without being aggressive, I can't see why I
>>>> should bother with you.
>>
>>> Come on Sylvia. Quit pretending you don't care. There is a lot at stake
>>> here: The "who is smarter than Einstein" prize for 2016!
>>
>> I find it difficult to express just how much I despise people who use
>> aggression as a debating tactic.
>
> "All you care about is who's right, the FACTS, but what
> about FEELINGS, you brute?  You never consider MY needs,
> that's what this argument is REALLY about!"
>
> She argues just like...
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymmRnKaTEr8
>
> --
> Rich
>

No, you miss the point entirely. My thoughts are always along the lines 
of "is that all they have, and they think it's useful?"

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391410

The car splits the garage into 
two frames, or rather, a continuum
of frames, as it were.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391411

Op 02-sep-2016 om 17:31 schreef Ross A. Finlayson:
> The car splits the garage into
> two frames, or rather, a continuum
> of frames, as it were.

Basically, you mean, as you used to open your nonsense
statements about number systems at sci.math.
Basically way back, as it were.

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391435

These days that's "If you can't
make sense of it, don't go making 
nonsense of it".

Indeed, the Equivalency Function 
or "sweep principle" as (unique) 
counterexample to un-countabilty 
stands quite firmly as opinion, 
mine.

Also some useful results for 
mathematicans like the Intermediate 
Value Theorem are so established 
with the corresponding countable, 
continuous domain.


Here then instead there is that a 
massive object accelerating hard by 
c brings quite a radius of its 
surrounds with it, as frames are 
so defined in the kinetic.

This is part of, overall: A-Theory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391447

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 4:59:01 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> These days that's "If you can't
> make sense of it, don't go making 
> nonsense of it".
> 
> Indeed, the Equivalency Function 
> or "sweep principle" as (unique) 
> counterexample to un-countabilty 
> stands quite firmly as opinion, 
> mine.
> 
> Also some useful results for 
> mathematicans like the Intermediate 
> Value Theorem are so established 
> with the corresponding countable, 
> continuous domain.
> 
> 
> Here then instead there is that a 
> massive object accelerating hard by 
> c brings quite a radius of its 
> surrounds with it, as frames are 
> so defined in the kinetic.
> 
> This is part of, overall: A-Theory.

It seems clear there is a place in physics 
for the mathematics of infinity, and in fact 
and indeed much of extra-classical mathematical 
physics sees the symmetries or reflection of 
the classical in the meso-scale about the infinite 
in extent and infinitesimal in exent, the total 
and point for the global and local.

Key to this then is the extent of the support of 
mathematical foundations for foundations of the 
mathematical physics.

Where the features of the physics plainly enough 
_are_ the features of the mathematics, then finding 
new features of common structures in the mathematics 
automatically so equips the physics with these features.  

Here these "new features" are of the points in the line 
themselves, that there are models of R the real numbers 
of line continuity (as above), field continuity (as usual), 
and signal continuity (as consequent) that would find 
relevant placement variously in the models of the 
physical regimes.  

Here this isn't so much about the various models in physics 
themselves of the fluid model or the wave model and how 
these today may commonly yet be but a partial perspective 
of the true nature of things, it is already a richer 
substrate of the elements of the continuum themselves 
that advises what occurs of these effects of the "particle" 
in the configuration (or as Bohr puts it, arrangement) and 
energy of experiment that so yields the _effects_ in physics, 
as they are direct effects, as it were, in mathematics.

So, yeah, the points in a line 
from zero to one are a continuum.

Also they're uniform and regular there, 
constant monotone increasing as it were.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#391448

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 7:33:02 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 4:59:01 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > These days that's "If you can't
> > make sense of it, don't go making 
> > nonsense of it".
> > 
> > Indeed, the Equivalency Function 
> > or "sweep principle" as (unique) 
> > counterexample to un-countabilty 
> > stands quite firmly as opinion, 
> > mine.
> > 
> > Also some useful results for 
> > mathematicans like the Intermediate 
> > Value Theorem are so established 
> > with the corresponding countable, 
> > continuous domain.
> > 
> > 
> > Here then instead there is that a 
> > massive object accelerating hard by 
> > c brings quite a radius of its 
> > surrounds with it, as frames are 
> > so defined in the kinetic.
> > 
> > This is part of, overall: A-Theory.
> 
> It seems clear there is a place in physics 
> for the mathematics of infinity, and in fact 
> and indeed much of extra-classical mathematical 
> physics sees the symmetries or reflection of 
> the classical in the meso-scale about the infinite 
> in extent and infinitesimal in exent, the total 
> and point for the global and local.
> 
> Key to this then is the extent of the support of 
> mathematical foundations for foundations of the 
> mathematical physics.
> 
> Where the features of the physics plainly enough 
> _are_ the features of the mathematics, then finding 
> new features of common structures in the mathematics 
> automatically so equips the physics with these features.  
> 
> Here these "new features" are of the points in the line 
> themselves, that there are models of R the real numbers 
> of line continuity (as above), field continuity (as usual), 
> and signal continuity (as consequent) that would find 
> relevant placement variously in the models of the 
> physical regimes.  
> 
> Here this isn't so much about the various models in physics 
> themselves of the fluid model or the wave model and how 
> these today may commonly yet be but a partial perspective 
> of the true nature of things, it is already a richer 
> substrate of the elements of the continuum themselves 
> that advises what occurs of these effects of the "particle" 
> in the configuration (or as Bohr puts it, arrangement) and 
> energy of experiment that so yields the _effects_ in physics, 
> as they are direct effects, as it were, in mathematics.
> 
> So, yeah, the points in a line 
> from zero to one are a continuum.
> 
> Also they're uniform and regular there, 
> constant monotone increasing as it were.

Dirk, you can also read my other posts here to get an 
idea of what kind of narrative I've been establishing 
with regards to usual modern notions of theoretical 
physics.

And on sci.logic with respect to formal logic, 
and on sci.math with respect to mathematics.

There's about quite enough of them for your 
computer research assistant to present to you 
quite whatever it would have you read.

Thus, I encourage you to read for yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web