A puzzle for the SRians
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New data suggest a lighter Higgs
Next:  Making Waves
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.
From: PD on 27 Jul 2010 21:22 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. > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: artful on 27 Jul 2010 21:42
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. > > .. but does > > that theory actually work in reality? > > Of course, it just explains things differently. Not all theory explain things correctly. They may be different, but also wrong. You need a theory that gives you the time dilataion that we see experimentally. > In the expectation to make further progress, to enlarge > the understanding. Irrelevant if the theory isn't correct (ie doesn't predict/explain what experiment shows us). SR *does* predict/explain experiment > >> Then again, I do not agree with the block universe, and > >> accept the fact that the Now is the same everywhere in > >> the universe. Just the clocks, just measuring inertia, > >> measure higher or lower inertia, as an inertiameter > >> should do. > > > Clocks don't measure inertial .. they measure (or mark) time. > > Then, what is time ? A dimension like (but not the same) as space. What is space? > To me, time emerges from motion. Motion requires time for it to occur .. you have things backward. Anyway , your personal philosophy of what time means doesn't really make a scrap of difference to physics [snip irrelevance] > > Up to you, but unless you have good scientific ground, its just an > > unsupported opinion > > I have. What? All I've seen is nonsense about FTL .. no explantion for time dilation, and no reason given to reject SR. > >> Is it possible to have RoS in the conventional view, > >> according to you ? > > > RoS doesn't mean a block universe. > > That was not the question. It was exactly the question. Try reading > > Effect still follows cause. It > > doesn't alter the notion of every point in the universe having a present > > past and future > > That is not the conventional view, but rather the block > universe. No .. it IS the conventional view. You clearly don't understand either. |