Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 12 Jun 2010 09:44 On Jun 12, 12:17 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. You are the stupidest runt of the SRians. The hole is 1.2 ft long at its rest frame. The bug is 0.1 ft tall. The rivet length is 2 ft. long at its rest frame. Gamma is 2. From the hole point of view just before the rivet head hits the wall of the hole: the length of the rivet is: 2/2=1 ft. Therefore 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 length of the hole is: 1.2/2=0.6 ft and the length of the rivet remains 2 ft. Therefore the bug is already dead way before the head of the rivet hit the wall of the hole. > > > > > > > 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. You are the stupidest runt of the SRians in these NG. The rivet - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 12 Jun 2010 09:56 On Jun 11, 2:15 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >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 > > ^^^^^^ > That word indicates two events involved (specifically their time order). Hey idiot...the bug is alive or dead is one event. It is irrelevant that the hole clock and the rivet clock register a different time for this one event. The reason why they register a different time interval for this one event is that the hole clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates. Ken Seto > > >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 > > ^^^^^^ > Again, indicating there are two events involved. > > >the wall of the hole. These are the valid SR predictions. > > So there are two events. The order they happen depend on the reference > frame. > > >> 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? > > No comment on this? Which star went nova first? No SR involved other > than a finite speed of light.
From: kenseto on 12 Jun 2010 10:01 On Jun 11, 2:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/11/10 1:00 PM, kenseto wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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! > > > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must > > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both. > > The perspective of the bug is different yet. Seto, pick ONE > perspective... it will be valid. But you can only pick one. No wormy....one of the perspective is apparent because length contraction in SR is not physically real. This means that the hole's perspective is not real....the bug is already dead just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.
From: kenseto on 12 Jun 2010 10:07 On Jun 11, 4:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 1:00 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 9:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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! > > > Wormy the bug cannot be both alive and dead at the moment when the > > head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole....both observers must > > agree on whether the bug is alive or dead but not both. > > No, Ken. > The order of events is frame dependent. > It is not true that both observers must agree on the state of the bug > *when* the rivet head hits. > The "when" is the part that trips you up. Hey idiot... the bug is dead or alive is an absolute event. The hole clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates give you the two perspective. When you corrected for the rate difference you will see that the rivet's perspective is the correct perspective. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 12 Jun 2010 10:14
On Jun 11, 4:54 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 1:13 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 11:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 9:01 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No, Ken. You do not understand what an event is. An event is a > > > happenstance that is labeled by a particular location and a particular > > > time. The bug dying and the rivet head hitting the wall occur at > > > different locations and different times. They are separate events. The > > > sequence of events depends on reference frame. > > > Hey idiot.....the time of the event is not changed....the bug id dead > > or the bug is still alive but not both before the head of the rivet > > hits the wall of the hole. The hole observer must agree with the rivet > > observer that the bug is already dead before the head of the rivet > > hits the wall of the hole. > > No, the two observers do NOT have to agree on the sequence of events. > Two observers do NOT have to agree that event A has occurred or not > occurred *when* event B has happened.\ No idiot....they must agree on whethe rthe bug is dead or alive. The hole clock and the rivet clock are rnning at different rates and that's why you claim that the bug dies at different times. If you correct for the rate difference of the two clock you will arrive at the correct persoective that the bug is already dead just before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. What this means is that length contraction is not physically (materially) real....that's why more learned SRian such as Tom Roberts says that length contraction in SR is a geometric projection effect. > > > > >...what this means is that length > > contraction is not material or physical as you claimed. BTW that's why > > the more learned SRians such as Tom Roberts said that length > > contraction in SR is not physical (or material)....it is an apparant > > effect. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > As I said, the sequence of events depends on the frame. > > > > > In one frame, the bug dies before the head of the rivet strikes. > > > > > In another frame, the bug dies after the head of the rivet strikes. > > > > > You have taken this to mean that the bug is both dead and alive when > > > > > the rivet strikes. This is, of course, a stupid conclusion to draw. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > This is not a contradiction. The simultaneity of the doors closing is > > > > > > > something hat 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 simultaneity 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 pole can fit into the barn with both > > > > > > doors close simultaneously and the poles cannot fit into the barn with > > > > > > both doors close simultaneously. > > > > > > No, SR does not make the second statement, because in the pole frame, > > > > > the doors do not close simultaneously AT ALL. > > > > > Yes SR makes such statement....the longer pole cannot fit into the > > > > barn and that's why the doors cannot be closed simultaneously. > > > > No, Ken, that is NOT what SR says. Stop making stuff up. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > >So it would be an > > > > > incorrect statement to say that the pole does not fit in the barn when > > > > > the two doors close simultaneously. > > > > > > There is no contradiction. > > > > > > You are an idiot. > > > > > > > > > 3. In Einstein's train gedanken: Two lightning strikes hit the ends of > > > > > > > > the train simultaneously.....the track observer sees the light fronts > > > > > > > > arrive at him simultaneously but the train observer M' will not see > > > > > > > > the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously...according to SR, M' > > > > > > > > is moving with respect to the light fronts (closing velocities) and > > > > > > > > thus give different arriving velocities of the light fronts.. This > > > > > > > > assertion violates the SR postulate that the speed of light in the > > > > > > > > train is isotropic. > > > > > > > > This is not contradictory. SR says that the RELATIVE speed of light in > > > > > > > any frame is isotropic, but it does NOT say that the CLOSING speed of > > > > > > > light in any frame is isotropic, and in fact SR says that the closing > > > > > > > speed of light in any frame may well be anisotropic. Confusing > > > > > > > RELATIVE speed and CLOSING speed in what SR actually says is an error > > > > > > > on Seto's part and no one else's. > > > > > > > Yes it is a contradiction. M' cannot measure the speed of light to be > > > > > > isotropic if he has different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from > > > > > > the ends of the train. > > > > > > Yes, he can. Light speed is not closing speed. They are two completely > > > > > different quantities. Light speed can be isotropic and closing speed > > > > > be anisotropic, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. Only you do not > > > > > understand this, and get the two confused. > > > > > > This is because you are confused in general. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > OK, so there are no contradictions in SR after all. > > > > > > > All Seto has discovered is that his expectations about what should be > > > > > > > frame-independent are not correct, according to experiment, and that > > > > > > > he is confusing two completely different terms. > > > > > > > > PD- 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 - |