Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: whoever on 11 Jun 2010 09:05 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:f9b35fa2-4f57-47cd-9e30-4a7667cd64b8(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 10, 10:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:0ea1e38a-c1d6-4162-856d-76e758ba55e7(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 9, 9:15 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Jun 8, 11:29 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > On Jun 8, 8:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> > > > Some Contradictory Claims of SR: >> >> > > > 1. In the bug and the rivet paradox: From the hole point of view >> >> > > > the >> >> > > > bug is still alive just before the rivet head hits the wall of >> >> > > > the >> >> > > > hole. From the rivet point of view the bug is already dead just >> >> > > > before >> >> > > > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. >> >> >> > > This is not a contradiction. The sequence of events is something >> >> > > that >> >> > > depends on the frame, and this is experimentally confirmed. >> >> > > Nothing >> >> > > that actually is observed to happen in nature can be considered to >> >> > > be >> >> > > contradictory. Insisting that the sequence of events SHOULD be >> >> > > something that is independent of frame, in the face of >> >> > > experimental >> >> > > evidence to the contrary, is simply detachment from reality. >> >> >> > Yes it is a contradiction. The bug cannot be both dead and alive >> >> > when >> >> > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. >> >> >> The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on >> >> the frame of reference. >> >> > No it doesn't....it is only one event. >> >> And that one event happens in all frames of reference .. as does the >> other >> interesting event, the bug dying > > No WRONG > from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before the > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from the rivet > point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the head of > the rivet hit the wall of the hole. So what? It doesn't change anything .. only the relative order of the events according to different observers. The same events still occur, so no contradiction. >> That gives two distinct events at two distinct locations. >> >> The order of those two distinct events depends on the frame of reference, >> if >> you are using SR or LET As I said --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: kenseto on 11 Jun 2010 09:06 On Jun 10, 9:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:2c6773a3-cdc8-4cb9-b42e-872b3bc7a4ba(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 8:45 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message > > >>news:4c0fc88c$0$22944$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > > >> > PD wrote: > >> >> On Jun 9, 2:36 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> PD wrote: > >> >>>> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek > >> >>>> <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> >>>>> kenseto wrote: > >> >>>>>> Some Contradictory Claims of SR: 1. In the > >> >>>>>> bug and the rivet paradox: From the hole > >> >>>>>> point of view the bug is still alive just > >> >>>>>> before the rivet head hits the wall of the > >> >>>>>> hole. From the rivet point of view the bug is > >> >>>>>> already dead just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> hole. 2. In the > >> >>>>>> barn and the pole paradox: From the barn point of view an 80 ft > >> >>>>>> pole > >> >>>>>> can fit into a 40 > >> >>>>>> ft. barn with both doors close > >> >>>>>> simultaneously. From the pole point of view > >> >>>>>> an 80 ft. pole cannot fit into a 40 ft barn > >> >>>>>> with both doors close simultaneously. > >> >>>>> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz > >> >>>>> and Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic > >> >>>>> effects were only apparent. Not real for both > >> >>>>> observers. Later, when relativity became more > >> >>>>> entrenched, it was tought that the effects were > >> >>>>> mutual, real for both observers. Suppose > >> >>>>> relativity works absolute after all, and that the preferred frame > >> >>>>> is > >> >>>>> the average mass > >> >>>>> distribution of the universe. The barn is at > >> >>>>> rest wrt this frame, so it does not have any > >> >>>>> real length contraction. > >> >>>> Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to > >> >>>> assume the barn is in the preferred frame. Suppose neither the barn > >> >>>> nor > >> >>>> the pole are at rest > >> >>>> relative to the average mass distribution of the > >> >>>> universe. Then how would you describe things? > >> >>> Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of > >> >>> them apparent, > > >> >> Does the above make any sense to you at all? > > >> > motion wrt to preferred frame -> real gamma increase. > > >> > relative motion only -> only apparant effects, for the > >> > other observer. > > >> > I cannot make it any simpler. > > >> You are talking LET .. not SR. There is no preferred frame in SR .. all > >> effects are measured only. > > > NO.... > > WRON > > > no such measurements ever been made.... > > LIAR > > > you call predictions as > > measurements. > > SR predicts what would be measured, experiments measure, and are found to > agree with the predicted measurement. The reason why SR predictions agree with measurements in limited cases is because these are the predictions of the absolute rest frame. Ken Seto > > You continual lies to the contrary do not constitute an argument > > >>In LET there is a combination of measured and > >> phsycial effects that end up with the same results as the measured-only > >> effects of SR. LET is more complicated. > > > No... > > WRONG > > > the reasoon why SR and LET have the same math is because both use > > the absolute rest frame to derive their math. > > WRONG. SR has no absolute rest frame > > > SR calls the absolute > > rest frame as an inertial frame > > WRONG. SR has no absolute rest frame > > > while LET acknowledges that the > > absolute rest frame exists an duses it to derive its math. > > That is correct. Hence the difference. No absolute rest frame in SR .. all > inertial frames are equivalent and there are no exclusive properties. In > LET there IS an absolute aether frame which has exclusive properties .. all > frames are not equivalent in LET, but appear equivalent when measured due to > distortions in rulers and clocks. > > You may not agree with either SR or LET, but please do not embarrass > yourself by blatantly lying about what they say. > > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Jun 2010 09:07 On 6/11/10 7:36 AM, kenseto wrote: > No from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before the > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. However from the rivet > point of view the bug is already deadat the just before the head of > the rivet hit the wall of the hole. > Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both!
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Jun 2010 09:08 On 6/11/10 7:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > No....from the hole point of view the bug is still alive just before > the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. From the rivet point > of view the bug is already dead just before the head of the rivet hits > the wall of the hole. These are the valid SR predictions. > > Ken Seto Pick on perspective or the other, Seto. You can't have both!
From: kenseto on 11 Jun 2010 09:12
On Jun 9, 5:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message > > news:4c0f53b4$0$22940$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > > > Inertial wrote: > >> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:humico$6dk$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >>> kenseto wrote: > >>> [...] > > >>> What's this supposed to accomplish, Ken? > > >> To let us all know that after many years (if not decade) he still doesn't > >> understand SR or what it predicts. I guess his argument then is > >> (speaking as Ken): " if even *I* cannot understand SR, then it must be > >> wrong .. as clearly it could NOT be *MY* failing". > > > But you are saying that you accept the fact that if a spaceship leaves the > > earth at close to light speed, clocks on Earth really slow down ? > > I didn't say anything of the sort .. where do you see me saying that above? > > In SR (and LET) nothing intrinsic changes in the clock rate on earth. > > In LET, something happens to the clocks in the spaceship (but not in SR) > compared to when they were at rest on the earth. If not in SR then why does a moving clock accumulates clock seconds at a different rate than the observer's clcok? > > However, in both LET and SR, observers at rest in the spaceship frame will > calculate/measure the clock rate on the earth to be slower. And observers > at rest in the earth frame will calculate/measure the clock rate of the > spaceship to be slower Never happen....the spaceship clock alway runs slower than the earth clock. Ken Seto |