From: Hayek on
artful wrote:
> On Jul 30, 5:12 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> artful wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Suppose there is a way to stop the motion of every
>> molecule and atom in your body, and to restart the
>> motion exactly as it was, hunderd years later. Your time
>> would have completely stopped, and you would be 100
>> years in the future.
>
> That is just the subjective impression of time.

You wake up, a hunderd years later, and you say all what
you see is just a subjective impression ?

> We are talking about
> what is objectively measured.
>
>> I claim relativity does no more
>> than that, by means of increasing inertia.
>
> You claim is not supported by any physics arguments or logic at all.

I beg to differ. The relativistic mass increase is real,
and measured in cyclotrons, it is even the reason for
the need of synchrotrons.

This mass increase can easily be interpreted as inertial
increase. If you have to pull harder on an object in
order to accelerate it, it can either be its heavy mass
is increased, or its inertial mass has increased.
Increase of heavy mass is magic, inertial mass is
perfectly logic. It is as seeing electrons deflecting
twice as much in an magnetic field, and conluding that
their charge has doubled, while the more logical
conclusion would be that the magnetic field has doubled.


The physics are quite basic, but even that you will not
understand.


> Object with larger mass do not experience a different rate of time.

If you double the mass of your quartz or of the
escapement of your clock then your clock will run twice
as slow. As it would be twice as hard to accelerate and
decelerate the mass of the quartz or escapement.

Is it so hard to imagine that when inertia would double,
this would exactly the same effect on the quartz or
escapement : it would also be twice as hard to
accelerate or decelerate.

This is physics 101.

If you do not get this, you will get nothing.



> Also the mutual time dilation of relativity is irrespective of masses
> and inertial.
>
>>>> 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.
>> If your metabolism would be higher due to adrenaline,
>> sure, but then your time would run faster, and make
>> other seem to run slower.
>
> SEEM to be. just subjective.

Not at all. If you define time as motion, it is no
longer subjective. They did a test with those red seven
digit displays, and make numbers run so fast, that
participants in the test cannot read them.

Then they put the participants on a height and just
before a bungee jump. Their adrenaline flows, and
suddenly they can read the flashing numbers.

> We are NOT talking about phyisiology
> or subjectivitty.

>
>> But higher metabolism means
>> just faster motion of your biochemistry, motion again,
>> nothing to do with time, unless your body has a built in
>> time machine, I just stick to faster metabolism due to
>> adrenaline for instance...
>
> All irrelevant to physics.

Knowledge of some basic facts of mass, Newtons laws on
motion, and some basic knowledge of inertia, are indeed
required.



>>> Your whole notion is backwards and contrary to what we observe.
>> Your observation is tainted by the fact that your
>> biochemistry is participating in all this motion.
>
> Not a valid response to my criticism. You notion is backwards .. time
> allows for motion .. you cannot have motion without time. You CAN
> have time without motion.

Tell me how then.

> If someone is at rest, time does not stop
> for them.

If you confuse someone being at rest, with someones
molecules being not in motion, I even doubt it you would
be allowed to clean streets.

Or are you posting from an asylum ?

Uwe Hayek.



From: kenseto on
On Jul 30, 11:13 am, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote:
> On 28 July, 02:22, 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.
>
> > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This newsgroup would be dead if people like Ken didn't start a thread
> now and again and people like you didn't reply. It's good for the
> newcomers especially to see if they can come up with an argument that
> demonstrates whether they really inderstand what they think
> understand.
>
> I hope you don't end up like some knowledgeable people here that spend
> their time name calling rather than calmly creating a logical argument
> that everyone can learn from.

No rational arguement is possible with the indoctrinated SRians. As
you can see when they are cornered they just call me irrational and
psychotic.

Ken Seto


- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Sam Wormley on
On 7/31/10 8:14 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No rational arguement is possible with the indoctrinated SRians. As
> you can see when they are cornered they just call me irrational and
> psychotic.
>
> Ken Seto

Translation: Seto does not understand relativity and claims that
anybody who does is wrong, indoctrinated and illogical.

From: Sam Wormley on
On 7/31/10 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No wormy....it's time for you to learn that the Sr concept of
> relativity of simultaneity is wrong and besides, it violets the
> isotropy of the speed of light in th etrain.
>
> Ken Seto

Get a grip Seto. Watching this episode of The Mechanical
Universe will help you sort out your misunderstandings, Ken.

Ken, order of event is observer dependent and nicely presented
in the 30-minute episode of the Mechanical Universe you can watch
on your computer!


The Mechanical Universe series.
http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html

42. The Lorentz Transformation
If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock,
depends on who measures it.


Lesson 42: The Lorentz Transformation

If the speed of light is to be the same for all inertial observers (as
indicated by the Michelson-Morley experiment) the equations for time and
space are not difficult to find. But what do they mean? They mean that
the length of a meter stick, or the rate of ticking of a clock depends
on who measure it.

Text Assignment: Chapter 46

Instructional Objectives

Be able to use the Lorentz Transformation to work problems relating time
or space intervals in different reference frames.
Be able to give some of the hypothetical explanations put forward to
account for the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Be able to discuss the concept of length contraction.
Be able to understand and use spacetime diagrams.
Be able to define and discuss the concept of simultaneity.
Be able to define and discuss clock synchronization.


From: waldofj on
On Jul 26, 5:12 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?
> 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?????
>
> Ken Seto

To someone with the mindset that simultaneity is absolute (you) this
may seem like a reasonable question. To someone with the mindset that
simultaneity is not absolute (SRian) this question is ambiguous and
can not be answered.
So, which mindset is correct?
I can think of two ways to address this question.
The first method is to bury your head in the sand and pretend that
what you don't see doesn't exist. I'll call this the Ostrich method.
Clearly your method of choice.
The second method is to refer to verified experimental results. The
key word being "verified". For an experiment to be verified the result
has to be reproduced by independent researchers in different labs on
different equipment. One question is how many times does a result have
to be reproduced to be considered validated? To get an idea of the
difficulty of this question google "N rays", an interesting story.
Just the same, the second method is the method of choice for someone
interested in reality.
According to the second method the SRian mindset is the correct one.
Your mindset is a pile of termite infested Lincoln Logs