| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Tsuguay" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2004 09:31:09 AM |
| Object: |
The Right Angle Lever Paradox |
The Right Angle Lever Paradox
The "Right Angle Lever Paradox" is a classic construct which is taught in
most courses in Special Relativity. As with all paradoxes, it reveals that and
error has been made in our thinking. It may be interesting then to examine this
paradox and the means that is conventionally used for its resolution.
The Right Angle Lever paradox reveals itself when we consider a right
angle lever with forces applied to the ends in two different velocity reference
frames. The arrangement is diagrammed in the Figure shown in
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/rf511.gif . In this diagram the lever
is shown as observed in its own reference frame in Figure B and as observed in
a reference frame which is moving at velocity V with respect to the lever in
figure A. The lever is aligned with one of its arms parallel to the velocity
vector between the reference frames and in both reference frames the lever is
observed not to rotate in response to the forces applied to its ends.
In order for the lever not to rotate in response to the forces applied to
the ends of the lever, it is necessary that the torques generated on each of
the arms be equal and opposite, as observed in both reference frames (A and B).
Because of the relativistic contraction observed for the parallel arm, as
observed in reference frame B, the moment applied to the parallel arm is
observed to be reduced by the factor (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 multiplied by the Lorentz
Transformation for Parallel Force as compared to the moment observed in
reference frame A. In the transverse axis there is no relativistic shortening
of the lever arm and the moment applied to the transverse arm, as observed in
reference frame B is equal to the transverse force multiplied by the Lorentz
Transformation for Transverse Force and it would seem that, for the lever not
to rotate in either reference frame, the Lorentz Transformation for Transverse
Force would have to be (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 times the Lorentz Transformation for
Parallel Force. These transformations were derived (Minkowski) and, most
embarrassingly, the required relationship was not obtained. The Lorentz
Transformation for Transverse force was found to be the inverse of what was
required to prevent the rotation of the lever, or (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5!
It was obvious early on that the paradox required a further explanation.
Either the derivation of the Parallel and/or Transverse Transformations for
force were faulty or the moments applied to the arms of the lever did not have
to balance in order to prevent rotation. Instead of accepting that there was a
flaw in the derivation(s) of the Parallel and/or Transverse Transformations, a
different and highly creative approach was taken. It was asserted that, in
reference frame B, the force applied to the end of the parallel lever added
energy to it at the rate of Fp*V and added angular momentum to the lever at the
rate of Fp*L. It was then argued that the rate at which energy was added to the
lever and the rate at which angular momentum was added to the lever produced
equal and opposite effects and the lever did not rotate in either reference
frame! IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE DISCUSSION UP TO THIS POINT IS IN COMPLETE
AGREEMENT WITH STANDARD TEXTS ON THE SUBJECT. From this point on , however, the
discussion diverges from the texts.
If one examines the expression for the angular momentum of an object one
will note that its angular momentum about an axis is the product of the moment
of inertia about that axis and the angular velocity about that axis. Since the
lever is observed not to rotate about its pivot pin axis in either reference
frame, one must conclude that, since its moment of inertia is not infinite, ITS
RATE OF CHANGE OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM MUST BE ZERO as observed in both reference
frames! Next, if one examines any text on basic mechanics one observes that, in
order for a torque to exist, a couple must ales exist. (A couple is defined by
the presence of equal and opposite forces separated by a distance. The torque
is equal to the product of the separation between these forces and their
magnitudes.) In the case of the lever, the couple results from the presence of
the force at the end of the lever and the resulting reaction force component at
the hinge pin which is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the
force at the end of the lever. (This is a requirement of classical mechanics.
Advanced physics and cannot be by-passed by the use of more advanced physics.)
When these effects are considered, the supposedly elegant solution to the Right
Angle Lever Paradox breaks down to the statement that zero=zero. This is most
certainly true, BUT IT IS HARDLY MEANINGFUL.
The Lorentz Transformations for Parallel and Transverse Force are readily
derived without the use of advanced mathematics or Electromagnetic Theory
(apparently used by Minkowski and which has the potential for introducing
error). All that is needed are the well known Lorentz Transformations of the
Special Theory of Relativity, the recognition that E=M*C^2, and simple algebra.
It is readily shown that the Lorentz Transformation for Parallel Force as
currently provided is correct but the correct value for the Lorentz
Transformation for Transverse Force is the reciprocal of the accepted value.
The correct transformation is 1/ (1-V^2/C^2)^)0.5. With this transformation,
the right angle lever paradox is no longer a paradox. What it signified is that
the accepted derivation of the Transformation for Transverse Force was
erroneous. Apparently this error was not recognized because it was
inconceivable that a mathematical approach could produce a faulty conclusion.
Lesson:- anyone or anything can screw up.
The material which derives the writer's conclusions is provided at
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/relcor.htm for your reference. The
writer has received an E-mail from an individual which asserted that he had
derived the Lorentz Transformation for Transverse Force using Maxwell's
Equations and found its accepted value to be correct. He probably used the
method used by Minkowski. That method, since it involves using the velocity of
light, would probably produce the observed error since the velocity of light is
must be considered in both reference frames and velocity is measured using both
length and time. The writer doesn't know the exact nature of his error and
frankly, he doesn't care.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm .
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
For a response send E-Mail to
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
