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: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 14:17 On Jul 28, 9:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Translation: You (Ken) don't agree with anything I said so I am not going to talk to you anymore. Ken's comment: Great, I didn't ask you to respond to any of my posts....hopefully this will end your endless rant what SR said and how physicists reserve the right to give contradictory meanings to terms such as "physical cntraction". Bye. Ken Seto > > See ya.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 16:08 PD wrote: [...] > I don't need to give you attention. I certainly am not going to rise > up to your childish taunts. > > See ya. ~excellent~ Now let's get Inertial to do the same, then the experiment can begin.
From: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 16:13 artful wrote: [...] Pleeeassseee stop responding to seto. He's boring, stupid, and hasn't said anything new in a decade. Let's see what happens when nobody talks to him for once.
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 19:17 On Jul 29, 6:13 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > artful wrote: > > [...] > > Pleeeassseee stop responding to seto. He's boring, stupid, and hasn't said > anything new in a decade. Let's see what happens when nobody talks to him > for once. OK .. of course, all he will do is claim that he's victorious because no-one is (he will claim) able to show him wrong.
From: artful on 28 Jul 2010 19:20
On Jul 29, 6:13 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > artful wrote: > > [...] > > Pleeeassseee stop responding to seto. He's boring, stupid, and hasn't said > anything new in a decade. Let's see what happens when nobody talks to him > for once. But ok .. lets give it a go .. just need to get PD and Daryl and Sam to agree .. we're probably the only one the say anything worthwhile. Ken will probably end up talking to MPC and BURT. A fate worse than death. Maybe we should post a thread inviting an embargo by those who understand physics from replying to Ken ? Anyone else we should ignore ? Of course .. the problem is .. if we ignore all the crackpots .. there'll be nothing really left to reply to, and this newsgroup will turn into an even bigger haven for crackpots. |