J.C.MacSwell

...and with it...Special Relativity...so you are left with creating your "thousands of (thought) experiments", based on what? All you have come up with is that assuming rigidity is not consistent with SR...and we knew that already.

OK. Lets assume a configuration with no faster than light movements or transmissions. (Sorry no drawing but say two capital "L" shapes, rotated and hinge connected by there tops in mirror image fashion. Verticals of the Ls now horizontal and much longer than their bottoms which will be the doors. Hinge connection such that the thickness of the Ls can lose or gain contact on the underside, "shut points", which is the exactly halfway point of barn ) So movement will mostly be vertical at the doors despite the rotation. In the frame of the barn: the contracted ladder approaches at near light speed. Both doors are open, connected at the central hinge, but not at the "shut points" immediately below it. ladder enters barn When it gets to the middle (centre point of ladder right below hinge) doors shut simultaneously. Doors do this as rigidly as possible in this frame. (exact rigidity is not possible for any accelerations in SR in the direction of acceleration) All points of the door are timed to move to allow this (near rigid movement), so no FTL transmission is necessary. What does this look like in the frame of the ladder? Here it is: Contracted barn with open doors near light speed approaches ladder The back door of the barn shuts, then opens when the hinge reaches the midpoint of the ladder the hinge shuts (simultaneously agreed in both frames) when the front door passes the end of the ladder it shuts then opens Note how "unrigid" the doors seem in this frame, despite being almost perfectly rigid in the barn frame. Edit: This is what I was referring to in my earlier post, for any given point* in one frame you can construct for agreed simultaneity at one point* and time only on the other frame. point* is actually a plane perpendicular to direction of relative travel I chose to make this point of agreement coincide at the hinge and mid point of ladder...nice symmetrical snapshot of the setup in the barn frame...very distorted barn in the other with both doors open and hinge closed

The definitive guide on "why" of golf has already been made known: (warning :lots of "colourful language")

OK. Thanks to you both. I am no doubt overestimating the potential of the effect.

Right. So one might expect some distortion (If it expanded evenly there would still be redshift but no distortion) Any thought on why, given the uneven expansion, we are getting as clear a picture as we do after13 billion years of light travel? Is it simply not enough distortion of space to matter, or is there some compensating effect I am missing? Edit: Or I guess alternatively, is there simply no distortion despite the uneven expansion (I can't picture how that could be possible) or the distortion of space somehow has no effect on the paths of the light (I can't picture that either...not that nature owes anything to my expectations)

You are trying to construct an event that can happen simultaneously in both reference frames at more than one location along the direction of relative travel and realize it does not work...this is just as SR would predict...not going to happen

If space is expanding more here, less there, quite a bit more here (where dark energy dominates), etc. etc. light following local geodesics would (I think, but obviously not so why not?) blur the light enough to make viewing of distant images impossible.

Should there not be a pronounced blurring effect on light (all EM radiation) running such a gauntlet of differentiated expansion? More than simple lensing effects. (I hope that is not too far off topic. I assume there may be a simple explanation not requiring a new thread)

All energy is "free", by your (OP's) implied definition. Let's not pretend any of us came up with any of it from "scratch".

Probably why the agnostic dyslexic insomniac stayed up all night...wondering if their really was a doG...

They simply ignore the mass as they are assuming it's effect is insignificant for the results they are looking to obtain, similar to assuming no friction. When a gear is massive and accelerating (or decelerating), or unbalanced, the effect of the gears mass can be significant. So you might be being impractical in wanting to consider it, but you certainly aren't wrong.

Do you feel you have a good intuitive understanding of how levers work? The principles are very much the same.

That has been recognized for almost as long as the term has been in use...I guess we all are a bit like 10 year olds in some ways...

So...your theory is "whatever the experimental results say, assuming mass decreases with increasing temperature, which I am pretty sure it does"?

My company is hoping to get out of jail fairly soon...yearning for more than just the conjugal visits with one of it's suppliers....

I know. I was there in the studio when they set up the (hidden, they thought that was best) fan for the flag. I argued against it but they wouldn't listen. Some of these guys had PhD's in physics and Engineering...they were all about the "dramatic effect" they were all spouting. I was young at the time and who was I to argue against guys who had helped out Oswald just 6 years earlier.

Very clever young man...very clever! But it's rubber sheets and weights all the way down!

(At some point I have to get better at showing the math on the computer) In physics you will come up against that, and the fact that you are suggesting a mechanistic model without defining the mechanism (how the moving space interacts with the matter, in particular comparisons at varying velocities in the same position) Accelerations aside, compare the velocity of the inflow at 2r (1/4 of that at 1r based on continuity) to the escape velocity at 2r (1/square root 2 of that at 1r). Or is that too difficult?

I know you kind of said otherwise, but are you looking for something like a mainspring (clockwork spring)? It is contained in such a way as to store compacted potential energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainspring

Maybe not the shock per se, but both maximum shear loads and bending moment get transferred there from across the bottom. Maximum tensile stress can occur on the inside at around that point (perimeter) depending on shape and thickness.

Many times I have done a very similar trick with beer or wine bottles full of water, where I push a finger in it to hold a bit of pressure with a good seal then pull the finger out creating a negative pressure up until the seal is suddenly broken. Just like with cavitation the damage is done on the collapse, not creation, of any bubble. The bulk modulus of water is quite high and creates a shock to the brittle glass from the high peak forces. That bottles tend to break around the perimeter of the base but never perrfectly

...and the follow up question: "which has more mass?"

So near Earth surface, distance 1r from Earth centre, your model has: inflow of space at 11.18 km/s and acceleration of that inflow at 9.81m/s2 What does it have at 2r?

Any fields affecting the space within the empty box that might effect moving the side? Did the Daemon get any outside assistance from pressure on the side he moved? (negative work).

Acceleration is change in velocity with respect to time, not distance.