The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
Pentcho Valev

Posts: 6,212
Registered: 12/13/04
Posted: Jul 1, 2013 11:38 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

The bug-rivet paradox:
"In an attempt to squash a bug in a 1 cm deep hole, a rivet is used. But the rivet is only 0.8 cm long so it cannot reach the bug. The rivet is accelerated to 0.9c."

In the rivet's frame, "the end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall" - the bug is squashed. In the bug's frame, "the rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole" - the bug remains alive.

Needless to say, the bug being squashed in the rivet's frame and alive in the bug's frame is fatal for special relativity so Einsteinians resort to an idiotic ad hoc "requirement" - the rivet shank length miraculously increases beyond its at-rest length and poor bug gets squashed in both frames, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:
John de Pillis Professor of Mathematics: "In fact, special relativity requires that after collision, the rivet shank length increases beyond its at-rest length d."

Yet even the idiotic length-elongation requirement does not save special relativity. As judged from the bug's frame, when the head of the rivet hits the wall, an enormous stretching force will separate head and shank, that is, the rivet will be broken. The bug will be squashed by a headless shank.

This "enormous stretching force" is absent as judged from the rivet's frame, and the bug is squashed by an undivided rivet.

The contradiction is even more clearly seen in the pole-barn scenario:

If the pole is replaced by a rivet whose head cannot pass through the door, then we have head-shank separation as judged from the barn's frame and no separation as judged from the rivet's (pole's) frame. Reductio ad absurdum par excellence. One of Einstein's 1905 two postulates is false.

Pentcho Valev

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.