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

Groups > sci.physics > #693075 > unrolled thread

Einstein's Paradoxes Are Actually Idiocies

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Einstein's Paradoxes Are Actually Idiocies Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-08 01:27 -0700
    Re: Einstein's Paradoxes Are Actually Idiocies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 10:02 +0000
    Re: Einstein's Paradoxes Are Actually Idiocies Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-09 01:21 -0700

#693075 — Einstein's Paradoxes Are Actually Idiocies

The (in)famous bug-rivet paradox: 

Georgia State University: "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."  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html 

"The paradox is not resolved" means that we have reductio ad absurdum. The bug is squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame. Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. 

However in Einstein's schizophrenic world relativity is immortal. Einsteinians have saved it by introducing two incredibly idiotic fudge factors: 

1. The rivet gets longer than itself. 

2. The end of the rivet moves at a speed close to the speed of light but a wave moving at the speed of sound chases it, catches up to it and stops it. 

Here is how the two fudge factors are introduced: 

Professor John de Pillis, University of California Riverside: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."  http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html 

Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. [...] But here's the thing. Just because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave, typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. [...] Isn't physics great?"  http://brianclegg.blogspot.bg/2011/11/relativity-can-be-riveting.html

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dg8W3aFX4AIY8Qn.jpg 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#693080

Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The (in)famous bug-rivet paradox: 
> 
> Georgia State University: "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."  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html 
> 
> "The paradox is not resolved" means that we have reductio ad absurdum.
> The bug is squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame.
> Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905
> constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false. 
> 
> However in Einstein's schizophrenic world relativity is immortal.
> Einsteinians have saved it by introducing two incredibly idiotic fudge factors: 
> 
> 1. The rivet gets longer than itself. 

Called stretching. Like a steel rod does when you tug on  one end. 

> 
> 2. The end of the rivet moves at a speed close to the speed of light but
> a wave moving at the speed of sound chases it, catches up to it and stops it. 

The speed of sound is on top of the speed of the rivet so yes the sonic
wave moves faster than the rivet does. This is also how a flight attendant
in the front of a moving jetliner can hear a noise if a bird hits the tail
of the plane. 

> 
> Here is how the two fudge factors are introduced: 

Two completely ordinary events you call fudge factors??

> 
> Professor John de Pillis, University of California Riverside: "In fact,
> special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length
> increases beyond its at-rest length d." 
> http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Bug_Rivet.html 
> 
> Brian Clegg: "Unfortunately, though, the rivet is fired towards the table
> at a fair percentage of the speed of light. It's somewhat typical of this
> book that all it tells us about the speed is that γ is 2, which doesn't
> really give you an idea of how fast the rivet is going, but if my back of
> an envelope calculations are right, this is around 0.87 times the speed
> of light. Quite a fast rivet, then. [...] But here's the thing. Just
> because the head of the rivet has come to a sudden stop doesn't mean the
> whole rivet does. A wave has to pass along the rivet to its end saying
> 'Stop!' The end of the rivet will just keep on going until this wave,
> typically travelling at the speed of sound, reaches it. That fast-moving
> end will crash into the beetle long before the wave arrives. [...] Isn't
> physics great?"  http://brianclegg.blogspot.bg/2011/11/relativity-can-be-riveting.html
> 
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dg8W3aFX4AIY8Qn.jpg 
> 
> Pentcho Valev
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#693265

How do you convince physicists that the "enough strangeness" (introduced by Einstein in 1918) is one of the greatest idiocies in the history of science? 

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older."  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf 

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERgwVm9qWKA 

"At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two."  https://hubpages.com/education/Twin-Paradox 

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."  http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web