> On Jun 12, 3:45 pm, PD gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

>> On Jun 11, 6:29 pm, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Jun 12, 12:31 am, PD gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>> On Jun 11, 3:17 pm, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>>> On Jun 11, 9:43 pm, kp <4vec...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>> On Jun 11, 8:29 pm, Pentcho Valev yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>http://arxivblog.com/?p=460
>>>>>>> "Entanglement is the strange and beautiful property of certain quantum
>>>>>>> particles to become so deeply linked that they share the same
>>>>>>> existence. According to quantum theory, that link should be maintained
>>>>>>> whatever the distance between the particles, whether the width of an
>>>>>>> atom or the diameter of the universe. This led Einstein to claim that
>>>>>>> the instantaneous effects of entanglement would lead to “spooky action-
>>>>>>> at-a-distance” in violation of special relativity which prevents
>>>>>>> faster-than-light signals. Nobody knows how the different predictions
>>>>>>> of relativity and quantum mechanics can be resolved."

>

>>>>>>>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
>>>>>>> Bryan Wallace: "I expect that the scientists of the future will
>>>>>>> consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much
>>>>>>> the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many
>>>>>>> angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still
>>>>>>> and the Universe moves around it."

>

>>>>>>> Pentcho Valev
>>>>>>> pva...@yahoo.com

>

>>>>>> Where exactly are the incompatible absurdities?

>

>>>>> The theory that predicts that the bug is both squashed and not
>>>>> squashed:

>

>>>>>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html

>

>>>> It doesn't. It is definitely squashed, according to the theory,
>>>> despite your link.

>

>>>>> and that a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn:

>

>>>> That's not an absurdity. You have an additional assumption in your
>>>> head that's making it absurd that is not a justified assumption. You
>>>> are assuming that length is something that is frame-independent --
>>>> this is what you think "physically real" means. It isn't, and it
>>>> doesn't. The fact that an 80m long pole (as measured in one frame) can
>>>> get trapped inside a barn that is 40m long (as measured in another
>>>> frame) is perfectly consistent with the laws of physics

>

>>> How long is the pole already trapped inside the barn (the doors have
>>> stopped it so it is at rest in the barn's frame now)? 80m? 40m? What
>>> do the laws of physics say?

>

>> In the barn frame, the pole is less than 40 m long, so there's no
>> problem closing both doors simultaneously and having the pole be
>> inside.

>
> Then a group of distinguished zombies visit the place, solemnly
> measure the length of the trapped pole and inform Einstein zombie
> world that the trapped pole is:
>
> (A) 40m long?
>
> (B) 80m long?
>
> In any event Einsteinians all over the world, on hearing the news,
> start singing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
>

>> Of course, a short moment later the front of the pole hits the
>> closed barn door and decelerates it and compresses it, a signal that
>> has to travel from the front of the pole to the back of the pole.

>

>> In the pole frame, the doors do not close simultaneously. The front
>> door closes first and the front of the pole hits that door,
>> decelerating and compressing the pole. The signal that the front has
>> stopped has to make its way to the back of the pole, which is
>> proceeding forward, unaware that the front of the pole has stopped.
>> This signal takes a finite amount of time, traveling at a speed less
>> than c. The rear of the pole passes inside the still-open rear barn
>> door, and a moment later the rear door shuts, and a moment after that,
>> the compression signal from the front of the pole arrives at the back
>> of the pole, and the back of the pole stops.

>

>> Both descriptions are consistent with the same laws of physics in each
>> frame, which is of course what the principle of relativity requires.
>> Many folks make the mistake of saying that the description of how the
>> events transpire must be the same, according to the principle of
>> relativity, but that is not what the principle of relativity says.

>

>> PD