Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: G. L. Bradford on 13 Jun 2010 06:02 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:svudnT7fqqwalInRnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote: >> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays younger. > > There are no absolute frames with special properties! > > Physics FAQ: The Twin Paradox > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html ====================== Some relativity?! He diagrams absolute space (he can't even begin to envision relativity of space), exactly the same space absolute to both! He doesn't get multi-dimensional (as in a perfect sphere [within] a perfect sphere [within] a perfect sphere....to infinity inside and outside, but all in fact one and the same perfect sphere). All he can see to do is stretch exactly the same 1-dimension of time [alone] twice over! It is the malleability of space, the relativity of space, that cancels out the so-called time "asymmetry" of the twins paradox. Einstein wasn't blind to spatial 'asymmetry'. Baez, and Wormley, among too many others, are totally blind to the 'symmetrical unity' of space and time within any independent unit of space and time which may be asymmetrical with another independent unit of space and time ("symmetrical unity of space and time," including the [constant] symmetry, the symmetrical unity, the universality, of the 'unit' elements of c). Perfect! Absolutely finite! Absolutely 1-dimensional beings! Incapable of even reaching 2-dimensional thought, much less 3-d or greater! Absolutely perfect Orwellians! Right out of '1984'! The stuff of Dark Age (as opposed to Space Age)! Baez has the traveler always on a hard tether, an increasingly massive tether, an unbreakable tether being reeled out into the universe by the observer, and reeled back in by the same observer who is also always in two places at once. The traveler is no independent in the universe in this scenario! Never, ever, independent from the frame and massive -- to ever more massive -- tethering line -- dictatorial gaze -- of the observer. As I said not long ago, they can't even see what the actual difference is between an unobserved real traveler always in the process of breaking down relativity with distant observers, or building up relativity, and an observed virtual traveler that can never break down relativity. No telescope ever reaches out into the universe to do away with all space and time between real observers and real travelers. No tether holds the distant traveler's local frame to the observer's frame. And there is no such thing as an "asymmetry of time" between observer and traveler without the corresponding 'asymmetry of space' between the two. Expand the time, the space must be expanded to exactly the same degree. Contract the time, the space must be contracted to exactly the same degree. These asses can't see that the unit elements of c are all of symmetrical, constant, and UNIVERSAL....ACROSS THE BOARD OF [SPACE] AND [TIME]. 'c' inflates and deflates, contracts and expands, with the contraction and expansion of the identical unit of space and time. It holds constant within each and every plane all the way up and down through the scalar planes of the universe. It not only holds constant broadly horizontally (so to speak) within each and every plane but also holds constant vertically (so to speak) in depth plane to plane, to plane, whether scaling up in planes or down in planes of universe. Thus light will always be propagated at c regardless of differences in positioning, motion and velocity, and be received at c. Stupid Baez and his absoluteness of space / relativity of time. His Orwellian talk of merger to a singularity, and opposed fact of separation into absolute space and relative time. The balloon balloons together, and the balloon pops together. It ends up the same space and time for both the unobserved real observer in his world frame and unobserved real traveler in his universe frame. The one will say, "This is the space of my local world external to me and this the time it takes me to cross it." While the other will laugh, saying, "That space is the space of my local universe external to me (solar system / galaxy / whatever the 'plane' of universe) and that time the time it takes me to cross it. We measure the speed of light the same 'c'. I just occupy more space all at once as my space, the same as yours, than you do, more time zones all at once as my time zone, the same as yours, than you. I just happen to seem to be in many more places all at once than you, though in fact within the space and time of your world view you occupy just as many places all at once as I do in my universe view." They talk relativity regarding space. That is all they do regarding space. And to top it off, they can't see it, thinking that all space belongs in the one dimension of the [history] parameter (not current time parameter, mind you, a 0-dimensional point, but HISTORY parameter, a 1-dimensional string). To Einstein, faster than light travel must have seemed an absurdity. Why even think about it when the traveler could contract and expand the space and time of the universe [non-local to him] while never coming closer to c than 300,000kps, nor ever seeing himself to do it in any global observation of his universe. To Baez, among too many others, the observer may be an independent observer, but the traveler can never be an independent traveler / observer. Throughout the reference as I scanned it, one thing was abundantly clear, the traveler's relativity to the observer never, ever, breaks down. Not only the linking tether reels out, but the observer's eyes reel out right with that linking tether (almost as that linking tether), staying right on top of one of the now two OBSERVED travelers (therefore no space, no time, between the observer and one OBSERVED traveler of now two OBSERVED travelers. To Baez and Wormley still, there being no such thing as any UNOBSERVED traveler distantly in advance in both space and time of now [both] of Baez's OBSERVED travelers). Now the picture that was an unreal distorted picture in the first place is made doubly unreally distorted. Exactly the same OBSERVATION of the observer just mirroring the original distortion by light and extending it. GLB =====================
From: Inertial on 13 Jun 2010 06:53 "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:4c14ab4d$0$22913$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > Inertial wrote: >> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >> news:4c149eae$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>> Inertial wrote: >>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>>> news:4c14822b$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>> Inertial wrote: >>>>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4c147c04$0$22933$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>>>> Inertial wrote: >>>>>>>> "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:4c142d47$0$22920$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>>>>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/10 7:19 PM, Hayek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> With an absolute frame, the travelling twin stays >>>>>>>>>>> younger. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are no absolute frames with special properties! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How does light now at what speed to travel ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why does it need to 'know' anything .. it just does what it does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With the help of the absolute frame. >>>>>> >>>>>> A frame is just a point of view (and which doesn't ahve any special >>>>>> properties, so does not 'exist' as such).. it cannot DO anything >>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is fairly well described in General Relativity, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope .. you clearly don't understand GR or SR. Get an education >>>>>> first >>>>> >>>>> And you learned there that "it just does what it does" about the >>>>> photon. >>>> >>>> You asked how it knows how to move that fast. It doesn't KNOW anything >>>> .. it's a photon. Ask sensible questions. >>> >>> With Newton's Bucket the question is also asked, how does the water know >>> that it is rotating. It is just a way of putting the problem. >>> >>> I wonder why you even consider that I would think that a photon is >>> sentient. >> >> From the silly question you asked .. that somehow it is up to the photon >> to know how fast it is going or that it has any 'choice' in that. > > It is just silly that you took it literally. > And then even continued to take it literally. Don't blame me for your nonsense question >> Changes in electric and magnetic fields propagate as fast as the universe >> allows that information to be propagated. AS information cannot >> instantly cross from one side of the universe to the other .. that it >> takes finite time .. means that light speed is finite. > > And General Relativity tells you that the masses of the universe set this > speed. No .. they influence how fast it appears to for non-local observers > If only you would open your eyes, I have > in stead of blaming your discussion partners that they have silly ideas > about sentient photons. You did. It was your silly question.. Stop trying to shift the blame to me. I should expect better
From: kenseto on 13 Jun 2010 09:38 On Jun 12, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 9:07 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > "Absolute event" is a term you made up, and has no meaning in physics. > The word "event" has a specific meaning in physics, even if you're > unaware of it. > The order of spacelike-separated events depends on the frame. > > > 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. > > In physics, Ken, it is important that one not favor one reference > frame over another as being "the correct one". Physical laws are the > same in all reference frames, though the quantities in the laws will > vary frame to frame and the description of events will be different in > two different frames. Sure there is the correct perspective. The following will demonstrate that clearly: 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 if length contraction is physical or material 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. What this mean is that you cannot claim both perspectives at the same time. The only way to resolve this is that length contraction is not physical or material....mainstream physicists resolve this by claiming that length contraction is a gemetric projection effect....not physical or material as you claimed. Ken Seto > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jun 2010 09:59 On 6/13/10 5:02 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote: > Some relativity?! He diagrams absolute space (he can't even begin to > envision relativity of space), exactly the same space absolute to both! > He doesn't get multi-dimensional (as in a perfect sphere [within] a > perfect sphere [within] a perfect sphere....to infinity inside and > outside, but all in fact one and the same perfect sphere). All he can > see to do is stretch exactly the same 1-dimension of time [alone] twice > over! Bradford doesn't understand spacetime diagrams. Time for some self education! http://www.google.com/search?q=spacetime+diagram Physics FAQ: Are There Any Good Books on Relativity Theory? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
From: kenseto on 13 Jun 2010 10:01
On Jun 12, 3:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >On Jun 11, 2:15 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: > >> >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. > > Wrong. The bug being alive or dead is a state of being, not an event. > Look up what the word "event" means in SR. It indicates a particular > location in spacetime, x,y,z,t. The bug is dead is an event....it happened when the rivet head hits the wall of the hole. The bug is still alive is an event.....it happened when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. This means that according to Sr when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole the bug is both dead and alive. > > You used the word "before". That word indicates how two events are > related in time order. In this case, one event is the head of the rivet > hitting the wall. The other event is the squishing of the bug (not the > bug being dead or alive). The two observers disagree on the order of > events. They do *not* disagree with the fact that the bug started out > alive but then was squished by the rivet. > > >> >> 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. > > Still no comment on this? Here is an extremely simple example of two > events whose order depends only on the position of the observer. No > SR funniness like time dilation or length contraction involved whatsoever, > the only SR effect is a finite speed of light. |