Bug and Rivet

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />How does LR resolve this issue or does it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That is a cute variation on "barn and pole". In LR, no paradoxes are possible because neither time nor space ever changes, and all frames agree about which frame is preferred and which has motion. The clock-slowing effect only works one-way, so that the moving clock slows and the clock in the local gravity field does not. Finally, LR has no length contraction, if my analysis in the latest <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i> is correct. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Thank you. I think you have an LR convert.[]

Actually I was already an LR person and dispise Einstiens Relativity. But I think this paradox makes it clear which is the valid view.

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

Nice one. First time I've seen a major physics website
presenting an SR paradox without attempts to obfuscate
using adhoc assumptions. SR paradoxes are irresolvable
if presented accurately since the theory itself is a
logical fallacy.

Tom,


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> Finally, LR has no length contraction, if my analysis in the latest Meta Research Bulletin is correct. -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


How can we access that Bulletin?

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />How can we access that Bulletin?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The MRB is a print-only publication available to Members and Subscribers. By Meta Research Board decision, articles in it (with occasional exceptions for reasons of timeliness) may not be posted to the web site for a minimum of two years to provide a benefit to those who support the research. Single issues may be purchased anytime by non-members for $5 each.

However, we also have a deal whereby anyone may request one free sample copy of the Bulletin. If you drop me an email with a postal address, I'll make sure you are sent the issue with the "Lorentz Contraction" article (2003 Sept. 15). Just include a reminder in the email because the free issues are normally two or more years old.

If anyone is considering a subscription or membership, see our store at metaresearch.org/store/advanced/default.asp for ordering and payment details. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 1234567890</i>
<br />Nice one. First time I've seen a major physics website
presenting an SR paradox without attempts to obfuscate
using adhoc assumptions. SR paradoxes are irresolvable
if presented accurately since the theory itself is a
logical fallacy.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Agreed. The symmetry in SR is a logical fallacy of the worst kind. Einstein solved the problem by saying that one of two object A and B experienced acceleration, thereby breaking symmetry.

Any theory that is riddled with paradoxes should not get the status of a theory. Enough said.