Re: Paradox in need of resolution.



RP wrote:

Two identical masses, at equal initial heights wrt the ground, drop simultaneously from a moving platform. Wrt an observer, who is at rest on the platform, the accelerations of the two masses under the force of gravity commence simultaneously.

(This modification of the experiment is provided specifically for the sake of Tom Roberts who seems to have difficulty distinguishing between sound waves and em waves. The strings are omitted completely from the argument.)

Wrt the platform observer the masses will strike the surface simultaneously, having equal distances to fall, and equal simultaneous accelerations. As measured by an observer, at rest on the Earth below, the trailing mass will strike first, the leading mass after. It follows that wrt the ground observer that the two-mass system will rotate after its release from the platform. But since the trailing mass begins its fall before the leading mass does (their release not being simultaneous in the Earth frame) their difference in elevation will continue to increase throughout their fall until such time as they impact the surface. Given sufficient initial height, the system could rotate virtually into a vertical arrangement before impact, that is, assuming frictionless fall.

If OTOH the masses were connected via a rod or cord, then the assembly would assume a rotation caused by the disparity in their initial times of acceleration, and depending upon the period of the rotation of this assembly the masses could strike the ground in any random order. This is contradictory to the FOR of the platform, from which frame the system would remain parallel to the Earth throughout its fall.

Now from the perspective of LET, assuming Earth as at rest in the ether frame, the clocks on the platform aren't in agreement with true time, and don't agree with each other. IOW, at least one of the clocks is indicating the wrong time. Thus the rotation of the system is explained as due to the fact that the trailing mass was actually released before the leading mass. The rotation would be real, if however unaccountable for by the platform observer, assuming as he does that the release of the masses was simultaneous. When the assembly goes into a spin and the relative positions of the masses along x reverses, he would be unable to account for this by any known laws of physics, and might be shouting some select words of wisdom. It would seem that he would be required to admit that the trailing mass was in reality released before the leading mass, and that his clocks are in fact lying to him, i.e. that they are not really synchronized. He has been fooled by a faulty assumption about light speed, namely that it is propagating at c wrt him, which of course it isn't actually doing. Again, this is according to LET.

From the perspective of Special Relativity, the same general fault applies. Hell, it's the same theory, is it not?

I'm not speculating this time Tom, so feel free to diagnose the error in the argument, and flame away if you feel so inclined.

The answer may lie in General Relativity, but I'll wager that there are no regular contributors to this group who can drum up a reasonable solution based within that theory.

Richard Perry

I suggest you do the experiment before further embarrassing yourselves with this tripe.

When the first mass is released the cord will result in a swing toward the other mass, which hasn't been released. Propagation delays in the cord won't change this. It's a simply Newtonian experiment *** Dirk.
If you allow the delay to be excessive enough you can provide for the first mass to actually swing back up and strike the platform on the other side of the leading mass. Providing the platform extends that far.
What a bunch of morons we have around here. I'd wager than the Newtonian principles that I invoked can be demonstrated adequately in any 7th grade science lab.

FOAD.

Richard Perry


.