Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum The lever paradox and the elevator paradox

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

Ni hao again Xinwei Huang

Regarding the balancing lever problem in your paper.

Relativistic mass isn't a scalar like ordinary mass. The mass increase only occurs in the direction of motion. Because gravity acts perpendicular to the direction of motion, the gravitational masses of the two balls are the same in either reference frame.

This makes things a bit confusing, and is perhaps the reason relativistic mass is often not used. There's an alternative, and very popular version of SR in which mass is invariant, but momentum is a function of velocity. The two versions are exactly equivalent, but use different definitions for quantities like mass and momentum.

Regarding the elevator paradox, the answer is very simple, and probably applies to the lever also. You mentioned this in your paper but incorrectly made a distinction between acceleration and gravity.

From "Modern Physics" by Krane:

"The laws of special relativity apply only to inertial frames"

The definition of an inertial frame excludes accelerating frames and also excludes frames at rest in a gravitational field.

Hello kallog,
I am sorry. 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.

As Einstein maybe said, if you can't explain your work to the woman washing the floor, then you don't understand it yourself.

You can't be bothered explaining it in a way others can understand. Don't expect anyone else to bother re-inventing it themselves just because they trust you.

Based on past experience, most people are unable to determine who is right or wrong.
If he insists that you are wrong, then even if he can not refute you, he will not admit you are right.
Only a few people who are smart and fair-minded enough can deal with all kinds of idea Justly. Only they could support me.
For others, you can not make them recognize the theory of relativity is wrong.
SO I do not intend to discuss these two paradoxes.
Smart people do not need me to explain. For those who are not smart, even if I explain is wasted.

Yea I totally understand you. It's vary rare to find anybody who'll ever admit being wrong.

But you're no exception. And I've just demonstrated clearly why your papers are wrong. You can't refute that. You should be smart enough to understand that I'm right. :P

A productive argument could go something like this:

1. I claim A is false because of B
2. You claim B is false because of C
3. I claim C is false because of D
4. You claim D is false because of E
5. I accept that E is true, so I accept that A is also true and you win.

In reality most people never get beyond step 2. And instead start changing the subject or complicating things with lots of other reasons. Or do this:

1. I claim A is false because of B
2. You claim B is false because of C
3. I tell you you're stupid and run away.