🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 13, 5:11 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 12:48 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> > 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.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z7GtgfTZ6w&feature=related&pos=2
"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
pvalev@yahoo.com