[PmbPhy]

I agree with you Pete, and the link you've provided explains it perfectly.

Thanks! The OP made two errors in trying to understand that page. The first error is that he neglected to read and/or quote the question portion of that page, i.e. Why can't a rigid body exist? After all, that question is [i[why[/i] I posted the URL to that page. The second error was that he didn't read passed the premise of the argument which means that he never got to the conclusion, i.e. ...rigid bodies cannot be described by special relativity..  It was because of those errors on that led him to post the following

That's nice.  It's also completely irrelevant.  Nowhere in the opening post is it stated, implied, assumed, nor required that the transmission of movement along the chain from the movement of the balls must exceed the speed of light.

These comments show that he had no idea what the point was that I was trying to make. This led to another error, i.e.
[quote author=Fruityloop
...for a moment that the movement of the balls is not simultaneous for observer O1 and also not simultaneous for observer O2.  Now the chain will break for observer O1, but it won't break for observer O2.
[/quote]
Which, as you can see, is clearly wrong. If the chain breaks in O1 the it breaks in all frames. By changing the timing of the events in O1 he neglected to analyze these new events from O2. Had he done so he'd see that the chain breaks in that frame too. Hence SR is not falsified.

However, after I thought about this some more I realized that when the two balls were made to move simultaneously in O1 he assumed that the chain acted as a rigid body and as such the entire chain remained a straight line in O1 when in fact it couldn't have. The ends of the chain would move simultaneously while the middle portion of he chain would move last. This the chain had to stretch even in frame O1.

The issue here is; Defining the body as rigid to which reference frame?

If one wants to get really technical, there are no rigid bodies even when observed in the same frame. When in separate moving frames of reference, the rigidity becomes even more suspect.

Precisely my dear Watson, precisely!

[PmbPhy]

Fruityloop - Unless you think we'd think less of you if you answered truthfully then I have a question for you; what is your educational background in math and physics?

[Fruityloop (OP)]

The OP is assuming that rigid bodies exist in both frames.
"Why can't a rigid body exist?"
"Because information can't travel faster than the speed of light."
"A rigid body is one where the distance between every atom is fixed and does not change."
The issue here is; Defining the body as rigid to which reference frame?
If one wants to get really technical, there are no rigid bodies even when observed in the same frame. When in separate moving frames of reference, the rigidity becomes even more suspect.

Nowhere in the opening post is it stated, implied, assumed, nor required that the transmission of movement along the chain from the movement of the balls must exceed the speed of light.
As I suspected, no reference to any text that would lead one to conclude that chains can stretch for nearly 4 minutes.  The difference in time between the movement of the balls is nearly 4 minutes, not 9 nanoseconds.  Go back and look at the math.  The paradox is still unresolved.

 

[PmbPhy]

Nowhere in the opening post is it stated, implied, assumed, nor required that the transmission of movement along the chain from the movement of the balls must exceed the speed of light.

Oy vey! It's been explained to you several times now that nobody is suggesting that something is being transmitted FTL,  nobody!  Why do you keep ignoring that fact? It's right there in front of you in black and white. The purpose of that web page, the one you are always misquoting, i.e. that page is about non-rigidity in SR. That's why that page starts off with the question Why can't a rigid body exist? and its that part which you insist on omitting. They provide a layman's argument to arrive at the conclusion rigid bodies cannot be described by special relativity, and therefore do not exist in the physical world.

It's beginning to become clear now that you know that you've been proven wrong but you're not reasonable enough to admit that you're wrong.

As I suspected, no reference to any text that would lead one to conclude that chains can stretch for nearly 4 minutes. 

Find me a journal article or a textbook that explains how a wheel works or how to walk without falling down. SR textbooks teach the principles of SR and give exercise problems to drive the point home. These textbooks explain that there are no rigid bodies in nature and that's what your argument is based on, i.e. the existence of a rigid body. In this case the chain. You're treating the chain as if it can't be stretched whereas SR asserts that it can. In post #10 I gave you a list of SR textbooks that explain this about bodies in relativity. Recall French's text; from Special Relativity by A.P. French, page 27:

One particular consequence of the physical speed limit equal to c is that the classical concept of an ideal rigid body finds no place in relativity. (And strictly speaking, it cannot be justified in classical mechanics either.) For by a rigid body we mean an object which physical information can be transmitted in an arbitrarily short time, so that the object is set in motion instantaneously, as a single unit, when a force is applied to any point in it. For an ordinary box, the information that one end has been struck is transmitted as an elastic wave, which we know is many orders of magnitude slower than a light signal.

Then there's Special Relativity: A Modern Introduction by Hans C. Ohanian,  (2001). which says

More generally, a physical signal of any kind cannot have a speed exceeding the speed of light. A direct consequence of this limitation is that an absolutely rigid body cannot exist, because such a rigid body could be used to transmit signals with infinite speed. For instance, a sudden push exerted against one end of an absolutely rigid rod would cause an immediate displacement of the other end of the rod, which would constitute a signal with infinite speed. Physical rods made of solid materials are always somewhat elastic. They are stiff but not absolutely rigid, and the speed of a compression signal propagating along the rod depends on the speed of sound in the solid material; this speed is always much lower than the speed of light.

Do you understand this paragraph? I.e. Physical rods made of solid materials are always somewhat elastic. The same thing holds for stretching too.

As I suspected, no reference to any text that would lead one to conclude that chains can stretch for nearly 4 minutes. 

So what? It's impossible to find such things in textbooks. Why would an author want to put it in his text? They can't put in all possible scenarios so why put one in for that? I've shown you texts which state that objects which may appear to be rigid in one frame, as you're treating this chain, but can stretch in other frames. That knowledge is applied when a body moves rigidly in one frame and if it has to stretch in the another frame in standard configuration with the first, then it stretches.

The amount of time to do so is completely irrelevant. I gave you an example of the same scenario, which clearly you didn't understand because you ignored it,  but where O2 is moving slower than it is in your example. Call this frame O3. Observers in O3 are moving at a speed where the time between the two events is only 9 nanoseconds. Does choosing a speed so that it happens that quickly make you all warm and fuzzy inside? If so then now jump into frame O2 and watch the same series of events. This time all you're doing is watching the same exact thing but now in slow motion.

The difference in time between the movement of the balls is nearly 4 minutes, not 9 nanoseconds. 

I don't know why people like myself bother with people like yourself. You clearly aren't paying attention to what you're reading and its for that reason that you're coming of looking like you don't have a clue about SR.

Had you actually read the comments in that post where I said "9 nanoseconds" then you'd have read this

If frame O2 was moving at a speed of v = 0.9c then it would happen 9 nanoseconds to happen rather than 4 minutes.

Notice the use of the word ---> If <--- Do you know the meaning of the term "then"? If so then you'd understand the conclusion "it would happen 9 nanoseconds". But it appears that you don't know how to reason correctly and this has become a serious roadblock to your attempts to learn SR.

So tell me something. Are you too scared to take on the challenge that I posted? You clearly ignored it. In fact you ignore all the questions that I ask you. I'd wager that its because if you answered me then you'd be exposed as being wrong and you don't appear to be the kind of person who can admit when they're wrong.


If you're really serious about your so-called claim to have falsified SR then contact another expert in relativity and ask them. I'm certain that they'll agree with me. Would you like the name and e-mail address of a few of them? Unless you're too scared to be proven wrong that is!

[Ethos_]

As I suspected, no reference to any text that would lead one to conclude that chains can stretch for nearly 4 minutes.

Let me make this so clear that even you can understand it.

The impediment that some people engage regarding new information is they have invested so much of their personal views in the subject that they are unable to correctly distinguish between detailed evidence and their prejudiced interpretations. When that reaction occurs, they often refuse to even examine the evidence or answer pertinent questions regarding the issue.

When confronted with such desperate biases, I consider it a waste of time to attempt breaking through those walls of prejudice.

[PmbPhy]

The impediment that some people engage regarding new information is they have invested so much of their personal views in the subject that they are unable to correctly distinguish between detailed evidence and their prejudiced interpretations. When that reaction occurs, they often refuse to even examine the evidence or answer pertinent questions regarding the issue.

When confronted with such desperate biases, I consider it a waste of time to attempt breaking through those walls of prejudice.

Brilliant my friend. Time to check the crackpot index and see which ones apply to him:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Index #1) A -5 point starting credit.

Partial Sum = -5

Index #2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. - Claims SR is wrong.

Partial Sum = -4

Index #3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. - Claimed quote was irrelevant because the premise didn't apply to his scenario when in fact its only the conclusion that was relevant, i.e. non-existence of rigid bodies.

Partial Sum = -2

Index #4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. - In post #11 he wrote

You seem to be implying that because rigid bodies don't exist, we can have things like chains that magically stretch.  The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises

which is clearly inconsistent. If a body isn't rigid it means that it can deform and will do so to make sure that no signals travel FTL. For example: Have two people hold each end of a what is asserted to be a rigid rod. Let one person hold his end steady while the other person tugs on his end. The rod must stretch otherwise the other end would move and the signal would travel FTL.

Partial Sum = 2

Index #4) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. - Assumes that rigid body is irrelevant seven times

Partial Sum = 37

I got tired at this point. I drives my point home though. Perhaps I'll finish later.

[Fruityloop (OP)]

Nowhere in the opening post is it stated, implied, assumed, nor required that the transmission of movement along the chain from the movement of the balls must exceed the speed of light.

Oy vey! It's been explained to you several times now that nobody is suggesting that something is being transmitted FTL,  nobody!

So here you state that nobody is suggesting that the chain is a rigid body.

These textbooks explain that there are no rigid bodies in nature and that's what your argument is based on, i.e. the existence of a rigid body. In this case the chain.

Now you turn around and claim that I'm treating the chain as a rigid body which is incorrect.
My argument is based on the fact that the chain is being forced into two different lengths between two different frames of references.  You do realize that by now right?

You're treating the chain as if it can't be stretched whereas SR asserts that it can.

Let's be clear about what is meant by the word 'stretched'.  I'm insisting that the chain can't be stretched for nearly 4 minutes.  I'm not insisting that it can't be stretched due to the time being taken for the transmission of movement from the balls to go along the chain.  These are two very different meanings of the word 'stretched'.

If frame O2 was moving at a speed of v = 0.9c then it would happen 9 nanoseconds to happen rather than 4 minutes.

The difference in time between the movement of the balls is nearly 4 minutes, not 9 nanoseconds.

Sorry.  I stand corrected.

So what is the resolution to the paradox in the opening post? Is it magically stretching chains that stretch for nearly 4 minutes?

[PmbPhy]

So Fruityloop. You're back to yet once again twist what's being said, huh? Fine. I'll prove you wrong yet once again.

So here you state that nobody is suggesting that the chain is a rigid body.

Wow. You sure do have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you?  What part of the sentence nobody is suggesting that something is being transmitted FTL do you see the words "nobody is saying that the chain is a rigid body"?   Please stop twisting what's being said. In the problem you describe the chain is not moving rigidly even though you might have thought it was.

Now you turn around and claim that I'm treating the chain as a rigid body which is incorrect.

Yet once again you're twisting what you're reading. There's no place in that comment where I claimed such a thing. However when you claim that the chain must break as observed by O2 it's because you're assuming that the chain can't stretch and that implies that you think the chain is inextensible, i.e. rigid.

You really are absolutely terrible at deductive reasoning.

Let's be clear about what is meant by the word 'stretched'.  I'm insisting that the chain can't be stretched for nearly 4 minutes.

And that's why you're so wrong and that error is rooted in your very poor grasp of SR.  How long it stretches for is frame dependent. All you really did was to choose a frame of reference that is moving so damn fast that the stretching of the chain takes 4 minutes and its for that reason you chose such a speedy frame, i.e. so you could claim that it's taking too long. What you failed to understand, even after I gave you a clear example, is that there is a frame moving at 99% the speed of light and in that frame it only takes 9 nanoseconds. But you didn't like that because it made sense to you so you chose a frame in which you could watch the exact same thing in slow motion, i.e. 4 minutes, just so that you could whine about it  "Oh boo-hoo! Lool how long it takes! Bah-waaa!!"

  I'm not insisting that it can't be stretched due to the time being taken for the transmission of movement from the balls to go along the chain.  These are two very different meanings of the word 'stretched'.

Like hell there is.

I can't take all the imbecilic crap that you're posting. Therefore since you're a fragging coward who doesn't dare contact a university professor whose an authority on SR to ask him and because you're also a rude cowardly SOB who refuses to answer my questions but has no problem asking them, I refuse to point out the further twisting of my and everyone else's words that you'll undoubtedly post after this.

You've been proven wrong, period. Be a man and suck it up!

[Fruityloop (OP)]

What part of the sentence nobody is suggesting that something is being transmitted FTL do you see the words "nobody is saying that the chain is a rigid body"?

Um.. because a rigid body would allow the transmission of molecular movement faster than light.

Now you turn around and claim that I'm treating the chain as a rigid body which is incorrect.

Yet once again you're twisting what you're reading. There's no place in that comment where I claimed such a thing.

Oh really?....

These textbooks explain that there are no rigid bodies in nature and that's what your argument is based on, i.e. the existence of a rigid body. In this case the chain.

How long it stretches for is frame dependent. All you really did was to choose a frame of reference that is moving so damn fast that the stretching of the chain takes 4 minutes and its for that reason you chose such a speedy frame, i.e. so you could claim that it's taking too long

Correct. This is why Special Relativity is falsified.

Let's be clear about what is meant by the word 'stretched'.  I'm insisting that the chain can't be stretched for nearly 4 minutes.  I'm not insisting that it can't be stretched due to the time being taken for the transmission of movement from the balls to go along the chain.  These are two very different meanings of the word 'stretched'.

Like hell there is.

[?]
That's so funny that doesn't even deserve a response.

[PmbPhy]

That's so funny that doesn't even deserve a response.

You're not bright enough to understand why you're so friggin wrong here so I won't bother trying, especially since I already explained that I won't bother correcting anymore of your flawed reasoning such as this ghastly mistake and I meant it. You simply don't have what it takes to learn SR properly and this childish behavior isn't going to help you. You can't provoke me into correcting you again with childish comments. I know this to be your immature way of attempting to get the last word in. Since only children need to do that I'll let you have it since it's a given that you'll say something incredibly stupid in your next post.

But you've been proven wrong. Suck it up, coward.

[Ethos_]

That's so funny that doesn't even deserve a response.

No, it's not funny at all, frankly it's sad. Pete has tried to explain your errors to you and it appears you are not equipped to understand SR. I suggest you open up a good book on the subject and try to absorb enough of the proven evidence that minds greater than mine, yours, and yes, even Pete's have contributed to the subject. Pete is one of the brightest and well studied members here at TNS so his thoughts and opinions merit sincere consideration.

Take our advice and learn SR before you make misinformed claims about it. When you do, you'll see why you were in error.