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: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 19:32 artful wrote: > 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. Then you laugh at him, and ignore him some more. He keeps posting because he needs someone to talk to. When the only responses he gets amount to laughter...
From: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 19:37 artful wrote: > 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. I'm fine with that. If it ends up that the loonies argue with each other, we got ourselves a whole new spectator sport. But they stay clear of each other - how often do you see Juan R. argue with Henry Wilson?! The target is the "orthodoxy", not other people they know are stupid. > > Maybe we should post a thread inviting an embargo by those who > understand physics from replying to Ken ? Anyone else we should > ignore ? People have largely figured out talking to androcles is a waste of time. I do wish people would stop acknowledging BURT, but that's merely because I'm tired of seeing replies to his thousands of nonsensical posts. It really is just seto, androcles, and burt who comprise the majority of the traffic in this newsgroup. Folks like MPC and Porat just babble to themselves at this point. > > 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. Folks like Oldershaw are amusing and possibly redeemable. At the very least, the things he says are loosely correlated to what you say to him. Folks like seto and the androcles, however, have been on repeat for the last decade. Do a google search for "hey idiot" + seto, or "idiot runt of the srians" + seto. They post here because people reply to them, otherwise they would have taken my suggestion of making a blogspot account. They want the attention. I just make it so negative that they don't desire it.
From: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 19:46 On Jul 28, 10:04 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Hey idiot....it was PD who mentioned M'.....he said that if two light front arrive at M' non-simultaneously there is an M" observer in the train will see those two light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. My answer to him was: M" is not at the middle of the train. > 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. I was telling PD that all pairs of strikes arrive at M' non- simultaneously will arrive at M simultaneously. > > > These pairs of strikes will also cause the light > > fronts to arrive at M non-simultaneously. > > Maybe so, maybe not. You need to specify. Do you understand what the word mean? > > > > > 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. This shows me that you don't understand how light propagates...two light rays R1 and R2 from the strikes approach M' and two different light rays R3 and R4 from the strike approach M.....that's why ' and M see the light fronts at different times. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Hayek on 29 Jul 2010 05:00 Daryl McCullough wrote: > Hayek says... >> Daryl McCullough wrote: >>> Hayek says... >>> >>>> Imagine a three dimensional space. Just three dimensions. >>>> >>>> Now imagine an object in it. >>>> >>>> Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. >>> What does "move" mean, if you don't have a notion of >>> time? >> Just change in position. > > What does it mean to "change" a position? It means > that the position is different at two different times. You could also call it Nows, or positional configuration. Then what is the role of your "times" in all this ? Another name that confuses "past Nows" or "positional configuration" ? >>> I know what *I* mean by saying "the object has moved". >>> It means that the object at one time is at a different >>> location than it was at an earlier time. >> That is a convenience approach for you brain. > > That's what a theory of physics is all about: > a way of organizing information about the world > that is convenient for reasoning. and finding reality. In this case "time" confuses more than it organizes. I will not deny the importance of time in our "body of knowledge", but if we want to know what time really is, we have to see which tricks it is playing on us, as we are participating in this process ourselves, our biological chemistry works with motion. >> You remember the object in a, and it is now in b. > > A memory is just a record of an earlier time. Your > definitions seem completely circular. Not of an earlier time, but from an earlier position. Motion is just change in position. > You keep using time-dependent concepts: > motion is only a change in coordinates. Why should you need time for that ? > memory A configuration of objects. Like molecules on a photograph, bits in a computer, configuration of neurons. > change. two positions required, not time. > What do any of those concepts *mean*, > if you don't already have a concept of time? You can define them without time. If you can do that, then you can describe our observations without time. Not just for fun, but to understand what time is. It emerges from motiion, and not the other way around. If the motion stops, then time stops. In your view, when the motion stops, time still continues to run in the background. >> There is only one object, and it is no longer in a. > > What does "no longer in a" mean? > >> Nature does not do time. It just does motion. > > That doesn't make any sense. Motion is a *derived* concept > that depends on there being different moments of time. It is the other way around, it is motion that creates different nows, which you stubbornly want to see as moments in time. > I don't think that you have really thought this through. > > Now, somebody else, Julian Barbour, has seriously considered > what it means to say there is no time. I just recently finished reading his book, and for some basic points he means the same thing. But it is all very confused, spread out over many pages, he contradicts himself several time on what a clock is, and drags a time- and quantum-scape into the picture, which he calls platonia, which is just the time dimension in disguise. His book should not have "the End of Time" as title, but "the renaming of time as platonia". He tries to save all the existing theories and all their possible controversies. I assume you haven't read it, because then you would not use these arguments against me, and not use such a vacuous authoritative argument. 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: Daryl McCullough on 29 Jul 2010 07:12
Hayek says... > >Daryl McCullough wrote: >> Hayek says... >>> Daryl McCullough wrote: >>>> Hayek says... >>>> >>>>> Imagine a three dimensional space. Just three dimensions. >>>>> >>>>> Now imagine an object in it. >>>>> >>>>> Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. >>>> What does "move" mean, if you don't have a notion of >>>> time? >>> Just change in position. >> >> What does it mean to "change" a position? It means >> that the position is different at two different times. > >You could also call it Nows, or positional configuration. Okay, that's what people normally mean by "time". So you're not defining time in terms of motion, you're using the usual notion of time in terms of a sequence of states of the universe. >Then what is the role of your "times" in all this ? A set of different "Nows" that are ordered (some occurred before others) *is* time. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |