🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 12, 1:51 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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

> 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
> pva...@yahoo.com