A puzzle for the SRians
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New data suggest a lighter Higgs
Next:  Making Waves
From: Androcles on 31 Jul 2010 17:38 "waldofj" <waldofj(a)verizon.net> wrote in message news:9de06ccf-8cda-43dd-89f3-9c4eaa23bc8f(a)f33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... 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? ============================================ A meets B when B meets A. True or false? The way to determine it is to use a common clock. Twin A goes off on a journey and is later reunited with twin B, but twin A is now younger than twin B when they compare clocks. Did A meet B simultaneously with B meeting A? To someone with the mindset that simultaneity is not absolute (you) this question is ambiguous and can not be answered. Using a common clock, A meets B at dawn but B meets A at noon because less time elapsed for A than for B. Your mindset is a pile of cockroach-infested dog turds.
From: kenseto on 31 Jul 2010 18:09 On Jul 31, 5:15 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > 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. Hey idiot why not? If simultaneity is relative and if M' sees the strikes to be non-simultaneous then M must see the strikes to be simultaneous to conform with the SR concept of relativity of simultaneity....right? Ken Seto > 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
From: Inertial on 31 Jul 2010 18:37 "kenseto" wrote in message news:830ce634-2882-4874-8934-03592487b09a(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >No rational arguement is possible with the indoctrinated SRians. As >you can see when they are cornered they just call me irrational and >psychotic. Because Seto IS irrational and psychotic .. It is no possible to have a rational logical discussion with a liar and fraud like Seto.
From: Hayek on 31 Jul 2010 19:14 waldofj wrote: > 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. Sounds more like the SR method. Only there they added smoke and mirrors and whatever you see must be real. First, they refuse to see an absolute frame. What you do not see does not exist. Even when you have maths that are known and tested and proven that they will hide any existing absolute frame from you, ignore it. They claim that they understand math enough to prove that hidden equals nonexistent. Only an Ostrich would do it better. Then there is Mutual Time Dilation, that one they see clearly. It is never proven, but they claim they had some telepathic contact with muons, or particles in a beam accelerator giving affidavits that these particles saw our rolexes, casios or swatches run slower. Many independent particles and researchers confirmed this. They also confirmed that they saw the Earth flattened and trains running late whilst flying by in saucers, being anally probed after being kidnapped by aliens, every Wednesday, after school. > 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 -- 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: waldofj on 31 Jul 2010 20:12
On Jul 31, 6:09 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 5:15 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Hey idiot why not? If simultaneity is relative and if M' sees the > strikes to be non-simultaneous then M must see the strikes to be > simultaneous to conform with the SR concept of relativity of > simultaneity....right? > Ken Seto In the first sentence you describe three separate events, the coincidence of M and M', and the two lightening strikes. You don't give any more information as to their relative timing. The implication is that they all happen "at the same time". But what does that mean? If one assumes that simultaneity is absolute then there's no problem and the question can be answered. The problem is the answer ultimately means abandoning the constancy of the speed of light. If, on the other hand, one assumes that simultaneity is not absolute then you have to specify the frame in which the events are simultaneous. You haven't done that here which makes the question ambiguous and unanswerable. That's the whole point of the original train gedanken, to specify the frame where the events are simultaneous and then see how that translates to other frames. The constancy of the speed of light has been verified experimentally, a fact you choose to ignore. Like I said, just bury your head in the sand and pretend what you don't see doesn't exist. It's certainly your right to do so but I just don't understand why you insist on ignoring reality. |