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 28 Jul 2010 09:27 On Jul 28, 8:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 9:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 5:26 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Hopeless. Ken, you're never going to get this. Your mind is bent. > > ROTFLOL....little PD can't refute what I said so he quite. > > Ken Seto > Ken, I'm giving up talking with you because there is no point trying to convince a bowl of Jello of anything. Your mind is a bowl of Jello. It will not matter who says what to you -- your mind is bent, and so it is a complete waste of time talking to you. This does not mean you are right about anything. It means your mind is bent. I don't need to give you attention. I certainly am not going to rise up to your childish taunts. See ya.
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 09:34 On Jul 28, 7:02 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > artful wrote: > > On Jul 28, 4:35 am, 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. > > >> No need to define time or have a time dimension. > > > How can an object move (or any change occur) if there is no time? > > ANSWER: It can't. > > Everything moves around you, That's no answer .. if there is no time, then nothing can move .. its frozen. You've got it backwards .. you can have time without motion .. but not vice versa. If something doesn't move, that doesn't mean time stops there ... but if time stops, nothing can move. Really .. you need to think thru your philosophy a little better
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 09:36 On Jul 28, 7:11 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > artful wrote: > > On Jul 28, 12:04 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> whoever wrote: > >>> "Hayek" wrote in messagenews:4c4ebce5$0$22935$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all..nl... > >>>> Inertial wrote: > >>>>> Anyway .. none of that has much to do with the answer > >>>>> to Ken's re-statement of the same old train gedanken > >>>>> that has been dealt with by SR for almost a century. > >>>> I find a lot of flaws in these "gedanken". For instance, > >>>> Einstein assumes that the event only takes place if you > >>>> see the lightflash of the event in your frame of reference. > >>> Wrong > >>>> Light to me, is only an imperfect carrier of > >>>> information, just as sound is. > >>> Yes it is. Among other things > >>>> With instantaneous communication, > >>> No need. And by SR not possible > >>>> and a correct > >>>> definition of time, > >>> We have one > >> Ok, time is what you read on a clock. > > > I didn't say that > > >> Then, what is a clock ? > > > A device for measuring time > > >>>> and there is no such thing anymore > >>>> as relativity of simultaneity. > >>> So if you make up a different theory, then you don't get it > >> It is not about "getting" it, it is abput expaining "it". > > > Its neither that I was saying .. I was saying that if you make up a > > different theory, then you don't end up getting relativity of > > simultaneity. But that doesn't mean that such theory is valid .. it > > would have to predict the time dilation that we DO observe > > experimentally for a start. > > I get time dilation, How .. how does motion change the rate of time? > but this is due to restrained > motion by higher inertia. Time emerges from motion, then > slower time emerges from slower motion. Relativity is ok. But its the other way around .. the more the motion, the slower the time. Your whole notion is backwards and contrary to what we observe. It's not physics
From: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 09:42 On Jul 27, 8:52 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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 No idiot....if the strikes happened non-simultaneously at the ends of the train they will arrive at M' non-simultaneously. > > > That means that M and M' agree with each > >other on all non-simutlaneity events. > > No Hey idiot if the strikes happened non-simultaneously they will arrive at M and M' non simultaneously. > > >That seem to violate the basic > >*tenet of relativity of simultaneity. > > You don't understand the basis You are the one who 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) No idiot...if the strikes were generated non-simultaneously M" must at different location to see the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. > > >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 Hey idiot....we are talking about that there are infinite pairs of strikes that can cause the light fronts to arrive at M' non- simultaneously. These pairs of strikes will also cause the light fronts to arrive at M non-simultaneously. > > > 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. Irrelevant....the speed of light is independent of the motion of the ends of the train. Ken Seto > > >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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 10:04
On Jul 28, 11:42 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 27, 8:52 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > No idiot....if the strikes happened non-simultaneously You said they DID happen simultaneously .. when M' and M coincide. Make up your mind > at the ends of > the train they will arrive at M' non-simultaneously. Maybe. And non-simultaneously in which frame .. the train or the embankment. Please be specific. You're really very poor at framing your questions > > > That means that M and M' agree with each > > >other on all non-simutlaneity events. > > > No > > Hey idiot if the strikes happened non-simultaneously they will arrive > at M and M' non simultaneously. Maybe .. you have to be specific. They could be non-simultaneous for M' and simultaneous for M, or vice versa, or non-simultaneous for both. > > >That seem to violate the basic > > >*tenet of relativity of simultaneity. > > > You don't understand the basis > > You are the one who don't understand the basis. Oh .. what a witty retort there .. not. Shame that your posts and mine show that it is indeed you who have no idea at all of what Sr says. > > >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) > > No idiot...if the strikes were generated non-simultaneously M" must at > different location to see the light fronts arrive at him > simultaneously. What is M" ... isn't there just M and M' ... what is this M" .. I thought it might have been a typoc, but you've done it twice now. Perhaps you should fully explain your scenario, rather than change it as you go along. Althoguh, that would be the honest thing to do .. so you probably won't > > >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 > > Hey idiot....we are talking about that there are infinite pairs of > strikes that can cause the light fronts to arrive at M' non- > simultaneously. Sp now you're adding in strikes that weren't mentioned in your post. Make up your mind. > These pairs of strikes will also cause the light > fronts to arrive at M non-simultaneously. Maybe so, maybe not. You need to specify. > > > 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. > > Irrelevant.... Wrong > the speed of light is independent of the motion of the > ends of the train. Yes it is .. but THAT is not relevant to the fact that there is only one midpoint of a line. So if M and M' are different points, they cannot BOTH be at that ONE midpoint. The speed of light has nothing to do with that fact. |