Post by PDOur friend Androcles has proved that SR predicts that moving rods are
longer than the same rods when at rest.
...
Post by PDRods don't change length.
Prove it.
Yeah, prove it.
================
Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof
11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster).
17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2).
18 Proof by "You're'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).
Proof 18 is my favorite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-17. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-17 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).
SR proofs belong to the set 11-17.
I shall use a proof by contradiction.
Proof rods do not change length.
======================
Since it has been previously agreed that xi = 2x' and Bonehead
claims a 1 metre rod measures 50 cm when travelling at v =0.866c,
the rest length of the rod at rest in the moving frame measures half
of 50 = 25 cm when v = 0, proving there are 25 cm to the metre
when the rod is at rest in K and Bonehead is as insane as Phuckwit
Duck and easily duped by Einstein.
QED.
All that's happened is that you've proven that you don't know how the
Lorentz transform works, and that you've rediscovered the same
conundrum that 7th graders land on. The difference is, you celebrate
it.
7th grade conundrum:
Frame A is moving relative to frame B, and frame B is moving relative
to frame A.
Statement: Given two frames in relative motion, the length in the
moving frame will be less than the length of the nonmoving frame.
Therefore: If length in A is L, then length in B will be L'<L. Then
the length in A will be L"<L'<L.
It's at this point that the 7th grader learns something and Androcles
learns nothing.
======
Yes, of course you do. That's what you do. Better than learning
something.
I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound
thinking reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
appear] -- PD