Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: BURT on 8 Jun 2010 19:43 On Jun 8, 4:29 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> 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". Begin to move and motion around you appears backward and dimishes in the distance. Relativity is an appearence of motion caused by real motion in the opposite direction. Mitch Raemsch
From: Hayek on 9 Jun 2010 03:36 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. It is not because the physics conspire to hide the preferred frame, that it is not there. Atoms and molecules were hidden from us until before 100 years, but that does not mean that their discovery and study is not useful. 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: Hayek on 9 Jun 2010 04:41 Inertial wrote: > "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(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 ? 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: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 05:12 "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:4c0f53b4$0$22940$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > Inertial wrote: >> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(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. 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
From: Sue... on 9 Jun 2010 05:21
On Jun 8, 9:35 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. > > 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. ===== > > 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. I hear they are adding a special wing on to Hell for talented politicians, oil executives and armchair theorists who can bend a statement beyond all recognition. <<There is only one demand to be made of the definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real case it must supply us with an empirical decision as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is fulfilled. That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light requires the same time to traverse the path A > M as for the path B > M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html <<Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claimsrather than from well-established regularities of nature. The experience of scientists over the past 400 years is that claims and reports that describe well-understood objects behaving in strange and incomprehensible ways tend to reduce upon investigation to deliberate frauds, honest mistakes, garbled accounts, misinterpretations, outright fabrications, and stupid blunders. It is not wise to accept such reports at face value, without checking them. Pseudoscientists always take such reports as literally true, without independent verification.>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... > > Ken Seto |