Back
Forum Replies Created
-
Yes it is. This is more or less likely due to Moore’s law. Despite it is originally describing the semiconductor industry, it seems to be that the knowledge domain follows even more aggressive slope. Every new invention generates two or three new ones. Of course resources shall reduce the pace at some point as there is somekind of a limit for our knowledge. In the mean time we must be prepared to give up some fundamental things in ordet to make room for the new ones.
In case the explosive device and the two channel trigger with internal registry attached on the wall. CH A monitoring state “TAIL IN” and CH B monitoring state “NOSE OUT”. Initially both channels in sleep mode. When the nose enter the barn ch A wakes up BUT NOT sending any pole status message. CH A wakes up CH B too. Both channels are armed and ready to signal in case of detection. So TAIL IN explodes the barn in case of missing NOSE OUT. On the other hand TAIL in cannot explode anything in case of active NOSE OUT signal.
Case 1: Too short pole or too long barn
1. Nose enters barn, both indicators and their comm links to the trigger activated
2. Tail enters barn: ch A sends signal “TAIL IN”
3. Trigger gets “TAIL IN” signal and its internal registry is missing “NOSE OUT” signal => Explosion
Case 1: Too short barn or too long pole
1. Nose enters barn, both indicators and their comm links to the trigger activated
2. Nose exits barn: ch B sends signal “NOSE OUT”. Trigger saves this signal into its internal registry
3. Tail enters barn: ch A sends signal “TAIL IN”. Trigger checks registry and finds “NOSE OUT”
4. Trigger has received NOSE OUT before TAIL IN => No explosion
While George and Gertrude must agree whether the barn and the pole are destroyed or not, they also have to agree on the indicator-trigger signalling comm link messages and states of the trigger internal registry. In order to trigger explosion: TAIL IN before NOSE OUT. In order to avoid explosion: NOSE OUT before TAIL IN. So it must be a question of timing. According to the indicator units the tail clock at the pole end must be ahead the nose clock? In constant velocity the Δt must be constant too. I’m not sure at all we can calculate this with the γ, i.e. lagging nose clock. This ideology means every atom or quark has its own time depending on its location on the pole (or barn) and the Gracie detected tail time is ahead the nose time.
I’m coming from the industry and all of the projects I was involved with have been those multi-corporate ones. In that world the role of funding is essential in order to keep sthe status quo in collecting references for the companies and individuals. In any case one cannot underestimate the enormous potential of career boost of contributing to the modern international scientific megaproject. Nowadays there seems to be the very same innovation boost in e.g. LIGO as in industrial megaprojects. In modern era every new innovation generates two or three more or less feasible new innovations. Unfortunately this innovation boost is not necessarily always measured in units of published scientific papers. In my opinion those side product innovations of any scientific projects should be developed for the markets. One example would be this course which is one side product of the LIGO-project. Hopefully this course generates one or more feasible innovations.
Our knowledge is roughly following a logistic curve. Most certainly there is a resource based limit for our knowledge. So far every new innovation has generated two or three more (more or less successful) innovations. So, I’m confident that finding 95 % of Universe unknown generates more innovations in many fields of our knowledge.
The device is not triggered as both Gracie and George should see the event. In this case I think the trigger and George aboard the pole both detect too short barn. Gracie on the other hand sees the unsynced nose and tail clocks at the pole (as George sees both the nose clock and tail clock in sync).
Re-thinking. This also collapses my earlier thoughts of pole/barn “gravity self destruction”, however still thinking the momentum of the barn and pole.
Couple of more thoughts. Let say there is a single door barn with a solid back wall stopping the arriving pole. Just before the pole stops inside the barn Gracie doesn’t see the pole as it is completely inside the barn. As it decelerates the 5 ft back end reverses out of the barn. At the deceleration George notices that the door side of the barn extends forward hiding part of the pole. Both the barn and pole have momentum (depending from point of view) as both are returned to the original formation? On the other hand the masses and densities are huge. So even after the pole or barn stops the infinite gravity has already collapsed one of them into a black hole. George can argue the barn has self destructed as a black hole and Gracie says the pole is converted into a black hole.
How about taxicab wheels at velocities near c? The driver thinks the angular velocity to be constant. The bystander thinks the angular velocity is not constant due to severe deformation of wheel structure. So the driver thinks the wheel angular velocity is constant and the by stander thinks there is acceleration present.