A puzzle for the SRians
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
Next: A new suggestion, about the new big linear accelerator that is now being designed!!
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 15:21 On Jul 27, 1:45 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 8:50 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:12 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified as follows: > > > > > When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes > > > > > hits the ends of the train and the light fronts arrive at M' non- > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > Question for the SRians: does this mean that according to the SR > > > > > concept of relativity of simultaneity M will see the light fronts > > > > > arrive at him simultaneously? > > > > > Not necessarily. It depends on the speed of the train. > > > > > But for a given pair of lightning strikes, there will be at least ONE > > > > reference frame with an observer M" for whom the light fronts arrive > > > > simultaneously. > > > > But there are infinite nmuber pairs of light fronts that arrive at M > > > and M' non-simultaneously. > > > Not for a given pair of lightning strikes there aren't. > > I didn't specifiy any given pair of strikes. You did say there was ONE pair of strikes on the train and the light from those strikes arrived at M' non-simultaneously. You asked if this necessarily meant that the light from the strikes would arrive at M simultaneously. I said, not necessarily. It depends on which pair of strikes. Out of ALL the pairs of strikes possible, there is ONE pair for which the signals would arrive at M' non-simultaneously and at M simultaneously. But for the others, they would arrive at M' non- simultaneously (separated by some time T') and arrive at M non- simultaneously (but separated by some other time T). > > > > > > That means that M and M' agree with each > > > other on all non-simutlaneity events. > > > What? No. You mean that for some pairs of strikes M and M' will both > > say the strikes are nonsimultaneous? Yes, that's true, but the two > > observers will say there is a different amount of time between them. > > But nevertheless they both agree that if M' sees two strikes to be non- > simultaneous then M will also see the same two strikes to be no > simultaneous. Not necessarily. See the above. In one case out of all the ones possible, the light will arrive at M simultaneously. For the others, not. > I agree that M' and M will say there is a different > amount of time between them. > > > So the "agreement" is pretty shallow. > > No not shallow at all. It illustrates that M and M' agree on non- > simultaneity of same two events...this follows that M and M' will also > agree on simultaneity of the same two event and thus refute the SR > claim of relativity of simultaneity. No, it certainly does not follow. Don't be a complete idiot. If they agree that two strikes are non-simultaneous but disagree on the time separation between those non-simultaneous strikes, it doesn't AT ALL follow that they will agree that another pair of strikes are simultaneous. There is no logic that would produce that statement at all. Your brain is out of whack. > Also they will agree that > simultaneity occur at different time in the train than on the track. > > > > > > That seem to violate the basic > > > tenet of relativity of simultaneity. > > > I don't know what you think the basic tenet of relativity of > > simultaneity is. > > Did you think that the basic tenet of relativity of simultaneity is > > that if one observer says two events are non-simultaneous, then > > another observer will say they are simultaneous? > > Yes RoS says that if M' sees two events to be non-simultaneous then M > should sees the same two events to be simultaneous....that's what RoS > claim. No, it does NOT say that. Stop making stuff up. What have you READ about what the relativity of simultaneity says? Cite what you've read, so that you can prove you've not just made this statement up. > > >If that's what you > > thought it said, you're wrong. It doesn't say that at all. > > Yes it does. You are never going to understand relativity, Seto. Never. You cannot think straight. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > Your assertion that there is one pair of light fronts that will arrive > > > at M" simutltaneously is irrelevant....why? because M" is not at the > > > middle of the train. > > > Yes, it is. > > > > It is true that there is one pair of light fronts out of the infinite > > > pairs of light fronts that will arrive at M' simultaneously but that > > > pair of light fronts will also arrive at M simultaneously....why? > > > Because the speed of light is independent of the motion of the ends of > > > the train. > > > A fourth grader can understand that and yet you call yourself a > > > physics professor. <shrug> > > > > Ken Seto. > > > > > It will also be possible to find a pair of lightning strikes such that > > > > they arrive at M' non-simultaneously and at M simultaneously. Just > > > > maybe not the pair you're talking about. > > > > > > Since there are an infinite number of pairs of strikes that can cause > > > > > the light fronts to arrive at M' non-simultaneously, does that means > > > > > that there are infinite pairs of strikes that M will see their light > > > > > fronts to arrive at him simultaneously????? > > > > > No. Just one pair. > > > > > Idiot. > > > > > Ineducable idiot. > > > > > Shamelessly self-immolating, ineducable idiot. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > In case you thought you had some brilliant insight here, Ken, no. You > > > > are asking a 6th grade question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 15:36 On Jul 27, 1:35 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > Daryl McCullough wrote: > > Hayek says... > > >> In the latest Now, every object has a velocity, > >> setting direction and speed. > > > What does "velocity" mean, if not the derivative of > > position with respect to time? > > It is like deprogramming a hare khrishna or something. :-) > > Imagine a three dimensional space. Just three dimensions. > > Now imagine an object in it. > > Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. > > When a second object covers twice the ground as the > first then say it has speed 2. > > The position of the objects is called the Now. > > There is no past, no future, just the two objects and > their changing positions. OK, let's parcel this out a little bit. What you are doing is establishing a change from one Now state to another Now state. Call the latter Now'. At the moment, you do not have any notion of speed. All you have is a DISPLACEMENT. The DISPLACEMENT of the first object (call it O1) is 1. The DISPLACEMENT of the second object (call it O2) is 2. Now and Now' must be distinguishable so that you can declare a unique state of O1 to have a single position (at Now) as opposed to two. If Now and Now' are not distinguishable, then you have no unique position identifier for any object. The first thing to notice is that you have declared unilaterally that you can describe these states unilaterally and unambiguously. That NOW and NOW' are labels that can be applied to both O1 and O2. You haven't said so, but it's worth asking whether those labels are independent of reference frame. Where time comes in, is the observation that certain repeatable processes can be reliably compared, and that they will always produces a common ratio of countable progress. For example, one process might be the swinging of a pendulum of a certain length. Another process might be the emptying of a can of water through a hole in the bottom. And it is noted that, initiating both processes with label Now and terminating at another label Now', it is observed that the can of water has emptied once and the pendulum has swung 187 times. If you repeat this, you find the same ratio. This comparison of processes is what we mean by, and how we declare a measurement of, time. In particular, what it means is that we will make a particular choice of a process, say the swinging of that pendulum, and we will declare that a Unit Process, or if you like, a Unit of Time. Then all processes can be compared to this (with certain stipulations of locality and relative rest). Speed, then, is simply marking a DISPLACEMENT between Now and Now', and finding the ratio of that displacement to the number of those Unit Processes. > > No need to define time or have a time dimension. > > >> Caused by inertia. I suppose you could say that > >> "time is a function of change of position". > > > That doesn't make sense. You can't say that position > > has *changed* unless you have two different times to > > compare those positions. > > These are only in your memory. That is playing tricks on > you. Move a ball from a to b. It is no longer in a, > except in your memory. > > I makes more sense than a time dimension. You cannot go > back by traveling through time to the moment that object > was still in a. The object has moved and is no longer in a. > period. > > 3D+motion is not equal to 4D. > > Uwe Hayek. > > -- > We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate > inversion : the stage where the government is free to do > anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by > permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of > human history. -- Ayn Rand > > I predict future happiness for Americans if they can > prevent the government from wasting the labors of the > people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- > Thomas Jefferson. > > Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of > ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue > is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: eric gisse on 27 Jul 2010 18:01 PD wrote: [...] Paul, try an experiment for me: Stop talking to ken for a month. You are one of the only people who still talks to him. I want to see what happens if people simply stop talking to him. I imagine he'll make a bunch more threads, then finally dry up and blow away.
From: kenseto on 27 Jul 2010 18:26 On Jul 27, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 1:45 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 10:09 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 27, 8:50 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 26, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:12 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified as follows: > > > > > > When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes > > > > > > hits the ends of the train and the light fronts arrive at M' non- > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > Question for the SRians: does this mean that according to the SR > > > > > > concept of relativity of simultaneity M will see the light fronts > > > > > > arrive at him simultaneously? > > > > > > Not necessarily. It depends on the speed of the train. > > > > > > But for a given pair of lightning strikes, there will be at least ONE > > > > > reference frame with an observer M" for whom the light fronts arrive > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > But there are infinite nmuber pairs of light fronts that arrive at M > > > > and M' non-simultaneously. > > > > Not for a given pair of lightning strikes there aren't. > > > I didn't specifiy any given pair of strikes. > > You did say there was ONE pair of strikes on the train and the light > from those strikes arrived at M' non-simultaneously. You asked if this > necessarily meant that the light from the strikes would arrive at M > simultaneously. I said, not necessarily. Right any two strikes arrive at M' non-simultaneously will also arrive at M non-simultaneously. This means that there are infinite number pairs of strikes that will arrive at M and M' non-simultaneously. There are two specific strikes that will arrive at M' simultaneously....these two strikes were genrated simultaneously at the ends of the train to begin with. These same two strikes will also arrive at M simultaneously. Why? Because the speed of light is independent of the motion of the ends of the train. >It depends on which pair of > strikes. Out of ALL the pairs of strikes possible, there is ONE pair > for which the signals would arrive at M' non-simultaneously and at M > simultaneously. No...all pairs of strikes that arrive at M' non-simultaneously will also arrive at M non-simultaneously. There is one pair of strikes that will arrive at M' simultaneously and that pair of strikes will also arrive at M simultaneously. >But for the others, they would arrive at M' non- > simultaneously (separated by some time T') and arrive at M non- > simultaneously (but separated by some other time T). > > > > > > > That means that M and M' agree with each > > > > other on all non-simutlaneity events. > > > > What? No. You mean that for some pairs of strikes M and M' will both > > > say the strikes are nonsimultaneous? Yes, that's true, but the two > > > observers will say there is a different amount of time between them. > > > But nevertheless they both agree that if M' sees two strikes to be non- > > simultaneous then M will also see the same two strikes to be no > > simultaneous. > > Not necessarily. See the above. In one case out of all the ones > possible, the light will arrive at M simultaneously. For the others, > not. Yes necessarily. No pair of strikes can occur non-simutlaneously at M' and occur simutaneously at M. > > > I agree that M' and M will say there is a different > > amount of time between them. > > > > So the "agreement" is pretty shallow. > > > No not shallow at all. It illustrates that M and M' agree on non- > > simultaneity of same two events...this follows that M and M' will also > > agree on simultaneity of the same two event and thus refute the SR > > claim of relativity of simultaneity. > > No, it certainly does not follow. Don't be a complete idiot. You are the idiot. There exists an infinite number of pair of strikes arrive at M' non-simultaneously and these infinite pairs of strikes will also arrive at M non-simultaneously. There is one pair of strikes that arrive at M' simultaneously. This same pair of strikes will also arrive at M simultaneously. Why? Because the speed of light is independent of the motion of the ends of the train. Ken Seto > If they > agree that two strikes are non-simultaneous but disagree on the time > separation between those non-simultaneous strikes, it doesn't AT ALL > follow that they will agree that another pair of strikes are > simultaneous. There is no logic that would produce that statement at > all. > > Your brain is out of whack. > > > > > > > Also they will agree that > > simultaneity occur at different time in the train than on the track. > > > > > That seem to violate the basic > > > > tenet of relativity of simultaneity. > > > > I don't know what you think the basic tenet of relativity of > > > simultaneity is. > > > Did you think that the basic tenet of relativity of simultaneity is > > > that if one observer says two events are non-simultaneous, then > > > another observer will say they are simultaneous? > > > Yes RoS says that if M' sees two events to be non-simultaneous then M > > should sees the same two events to be simultaneous....that's what RoS > > claim. > > No, it does NOT say that. > > Stop making stuff up. > What have you READ about what the relativity of simultaneity says? > Cite what you've read, so that you can prove you've not just made this > statement up. > > > > > >If that's what you > > > thought it said, you're wrong. It doesn't say that at all. > > > Yes it does. > > You are never going to understand relativity, Seto. Never. > > You cannot think straight. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > Your assertion that there is one pair of light fronts that will arrive > > > > at M" simutltaneously is irrelevant....why? because M" is not at the > > > > middle of the train. > > > > Yes, it is. > > > > > It is true that there is one pair of light fronts out of the infinite > > > > pairs of light fronts that will arrive at M' simultaneously but that > > > > pair of light fronts will also arrive at M simultaneously....why? > > > > Because the speed of light is independent of the motion of the ends of > > > > the train. > > > > A fourth grader can understand that and yet you call yourself a > > > > physics professor. <shrug> > > > > > Ken Seto. > > > > > > It will also be possible to find a pair of lightning strikes such that > > > > > they arrive at M' non-simultaneously and at M simultaneously. Just > > > > > maybe not the pair you're talking about. > > > > > > > Since there are an infinite number of pairs of strikes that can cause > > > > > > the light fronts to arrive at M' non-simultaneously, does that means > > > > > > that there are infinite pairs of strikes that M will see their light > > > > > > fronts to arrive at him simultaneously????? > > > > > > No. Just one pair. > > > > > > Idiot. > > > > > > Ineducable idiot. > > > > > > Shamelessly self-immolating, ineducable idiot. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > In case you thought you had some brilliant insight here, Ken, no. You > > > > > are asking a 6th grade question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 27 Jul 2010 20:52
On Jul 27, 11:50 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 26, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 26, 4:12 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified as follows: > > > When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes > > > hits the ends of the train and the light fronts arrive at M' non- > > > simultaneously. > > > Question for the SRians: does this mean that according to the SR > > > concept of relativity of simultaneity M will see the light fronts > > > arrive at him simultaneously? > > > Not necessarily. It depends on the speed of the train. > > > But for a given pair of lightning strikes, there will be at least ONE > > reference frame with an observer M" for whom the light fronts arrive > > simultaneously. > >But there are infinite nmuber pairs of light fronts that arrive at M >and M' non-simultaneously. From other sources > That means that M and M' agree with each >other on all non-simutlaneity events. No >That seem to violate the basic >*tenet of relativity of simultaneity. You don't understand the basis >Your assertion that there is one pair of light fronts that will arrive >at M" simutltaneously is irrelevant....why? because M" is not at the >middle of the train. No .. it *is* at the middle of the train That is specified in the gedanken (which you did not modify) >It is true that there is one pair of light fronts out of the infinite >pairs of light fronts that will arrive at M' simultaneously Only one pair from the lightning bolts we are discussing .. other sources aren't relevant > but that >pair of light fronts will also arrive at M simultaneously.... No .. as M and M; are at two different locations in the line between the fronts. >why? >Because the speed of light is independent of the motion of the ends of >the train. >A fourth grader can understand that and yet you call yourself a >physics professor. <shrug> Yet you have problems with it .. Maybe you need to go back to fourth grade. |