The lever paradox and the elevator paradox

[Xinwei Huang]

The lever paradox and the elevator paradox are more challenges to relativity than the twin paradox and the submarine paradox.

 

The lever paradox was raised by Xinwei Huang about in 2001. It has be discussed for many years in China. The conclusion is that special relativity can not explain the lever paradox, unless the introduction of the gravitation magnetic field hypothesis.

 

So Xinwei Huang raised the elevator paradox about in 2004. The elevator paradox has almost no discussion because even the gravitation magnetic field hypothesis can not explain it.

 

To solve these two paradoxes, I put forward my own theory. It can also explain the phenomenons that be explained by the special theory of relativity. But derive the same equation, it is much simpler more than the special relativity. Moreover, it has no all kinds of paradoxes.

 

It has been published in America already. The reviewer’s opinion was “This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint,not these comments.”

Please see http://api.ning.com/files/Cn30KBw0PdPD145Cp*DSr1B-*fhMX9oA-LfOH4wrwMwTz5zT5iV-lqXdK6SS*3l*JEwfPnskCXpPOoIa1-ujcmqb8qAmMDYV/mypaper.pdf

or

http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf

[swansont]

Your work is rife with errors, not the least of which are

 

The so-called relativity of simultaneity is only a visual effect. In fact, A and B are arriving at the two ends of the lever at the same time.

 

These two gross errors leads one to the conclusion that you do not understand relativity. Your critiques do not "conform to reason" partly because you have not represented relativity properly. I can only guess that the people discussing this "paradox," as presented here, are not physicists.

 

From question 1

According to Special Relativity, B’s mass will also increase. However, B has not been acted upon by an external work, so B has never got the energy and mass from outside.

 

Simple. Energy is not an invariant under a Lorentz transformation. (I am ignoring, for the moment, the application of relativistic mass). This is a very basic concept, not a paradox. It's true under a Galilean transformation, too, and trips up people in freshman physics classes who confuse invariance and conservation.

 

From question 2:

According to Special Relativity, there must be a release of energy with a change of mass. Well, where has the energy released by the object gone?

 

You accelerate an object, which means you have done work on it, and you wonder why the energy changes? This is supposed to be a conundrum of some sort?

[Mr Skeptic]

The major error I see is assuming you have an inertial frame when you have gravity. You need general relativity, not special relativity, when you have non-inertial frames.

[ajb]

The major error I see is assuming you have an inertial frame when you have gravity. You need general relativity, not special relativity, when you have non-inertial frames.

 

Not necessarily, you can consider non-inertial frames in special relativity. It is true however, that in doing so things start to look more like general relativity than special relativity. That said, there is still no space-time curvature and thus one is not discussing gravitational phenomena.

 

(Not that what I have said will change anything related to the OP)

[vuquta]

The lever paradox and the elevator paradox are more challenges to relativity than the twin paradox and the submarine paradox.

 

The lever paradox was raised by Xinwei Huang about in 2001. It has be discussed for many years in China. The conclusion is that special relativity can not explain the lever paradox, unless the introduction of the gravitation magnetic field hypothesis.

 

So Xinwei Huang raised the elevator paradox about in 2004. The elevator paradox has almost no discussion because even the gravitation magnetic field hypothesis can not explain it.

 

To solve these two paradoxes, I put forward my own theory. It can also explain the phenomenons that be explained by the special theory of relativity. But derive the same equation, it is much simpler more than the special relativity. Moreover, it has no all kinds of paradoxes.

 

It has been published in America already. The reviewer’s opinion was “This paper is good after removing the comments on different viewpoints for the special theory of relativity. We only need to claim our viewpoint,not these comments.”

Please see http://api.ning.com/files/Cn30KBw0PdPD145Cp*DSr1B-*fhMX9oA-LfOH4wrwMwTz5zT5iV-lqXdK6SS*3l*JEwfPnskCXpPOoIa1-ujcmqb8qAmMDYV/mypaper.pdf

or

http://fs.gallup.unm.edu//SE1.pdf

 

What is missing from your "paradox" is the math for your acceleration period.

 

You can use SR, if you use uniform acceleration.

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf

 

You must integrate in the accelerating frame using the time in the accelerating frame.

 

I can't see how you can put forth a paradox involving acceleration without using the readily available math to prove your assertions.

[Xinwei Huang]

I do not intend to discuss these two paradoxes. Because they have been discussed for many years in China. I'm tired.

 

If a person is smart enough, after read my paper, he should recogniz that relativity is wrong.

[Phi for All]

I do not intend to discuss these two paradoxes. Because they have been discussed for many years in China. I'm tired.

Since this is a discussion forum, and you do not intend to answer critiques of your work, there is no reason for this thread to remain open.