Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Vinyl on 11 Jun 2010 18:12 On Jun 11, 11:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/11/10 4:05 PM, Vinyl wrote: > > >> The order of events is frame dependent. > > absolutely not true !!! > > Perhaps you the kind of bloke that can learn from a lay > audience video presentation. read the argument cretin, why snip > > 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. this has nothing to do with the order of events in a frame, what part of the order of events you in a frame you dont understand??? learn physics from a book
From: Hayek on 11 Jun 2010 20:19 Inertial wrote: >> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:36:28 +0200, Hayek <hayektt(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, but to both observers, things will look the >>> same as either of them would be in rest wrt to the >>> preferred frame. This is the argument of the relativists >>> against the preferred frame, but that does not mean it >>> is not there, it is useful for understanding how it all >>> works, and this absolute view also eliminates the twin >>> paradox. > > There is no paradox. You get the same unintuitive result in both LET > and SR. An absolute / preferred frame or an aether doesn't change > anything anything about it. I beg to differ. With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays younger. Also only the pole gets shorter. With an absolute frame the moving objects undergo real effects, the stationary ones only apparent. Intuition is restored, paradoxes removed. With an absolute frame you do not have to resort to "breaking the symmetry" by "accelerating", which is nonsense imnsho, as the counterargument of pre-accelerated spaceships is a valid one. The accelerating argument is a hidden re-introduction of the absolute frame, as accelerations are absolute. Also with an absolute frame, it becomes clear that for two way trips, special relativity always gives valid results, but clocks can run faster on one leg of the trip, probably giving a more correct prediction if ever it becomes measurable. Indeed, we do not need the absolute frame for our calculations, but we do not only do calculations, in more enlightened times physics was practiced for obtaining an understanding how nature works. The mathematically inclined physicists should not forget that one answer to the question "which function works both relative and absolute?" is the gamma function or factor. 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: Sam Wormley on 11 Jun 2010 22:05 On 6/11/10 5:12 PM, Vinyl wrote: > On Jun 11, 11:59 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/11/10 4:05 PM, Vinyl wrote: >> >>>> The order of events is frame dependent. >>> absolutely not true !!! >> >> Perhaps you the kind of bloke that can learn from a lay >> audience video presentation. > > read the argument cretin, why snip > >> >> 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. > > this has nothing to do with the > order of events in a frame, > The above link, specifically, demonstrates order of events being observer dependent... which is the same as in the textbooks. Try reading one. Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
From: eric gisse on 12 Jun 2010 00:16 Hayek wrote: [...] > I beg to differ. Its' pretty easy to guess at physics when you know no math, isn't it? [...]
From: eric gisse on 12 Jun 2010 00:17
kenseto wrote: > On Jun 10, 5:42 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >On Jun 9, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> Two events. The head of the rivet hits the wall, and the shaft of the >> rivet squishes the bug. The question is the order of these events. > > 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. Are they actually SR's predictions? Show us the mathematics. Oh wait, you don't know how. 15 years running and not a clue. > > Ken Seto > >> >> > If you insist that the >> >observers disagree the time of the event then it is because their >> >clocks are running at different rates. But this will not make the bug >> >is dead and alive at the same time....at the instant when the rivet >> >head hits the wall of the hole. >> >> You don't even need to invoke SR to have ambiguous order of events. >> Consider two stars A and B, and two observers, a and b. All four >> (stars and observers) are stationary w/respect to each other. >> Observer a is 1 light year from Star A and 10 light years from Star B. >> Observer b is 1 light year from Star B and 10 light years from Star A. >> Observer a sees Star A go nova, then 9 years later sees Star B go nova. >> Observer b sees Star B go nova, then 9 years later sees Star A go nova. >> Which star went nova first? >> >> The bug/rivet is more complex but the order of events depends on whether >> you are in the reference frame of the wall/bug or that of the rivet. |