Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 13 Jun 2010 10:20 On Jun 12, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 9:14 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Not at the time the rivet head hits the wall, they don't. > No, Ken, they do not. > > It is true that the bug will be dead in both frames. But it isn't true > that this will be the case before the rivet head hits the wall in both > frames. 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 > > The rest of your made-up nonsense is ignored. > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 13 Jun 2010 11:28 On Jun 12, 9:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Hayek" <haye...(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. How does > a train whistle sound-wave know how to adjust its frequency so that a > stationary observer hears a different pitch? Becaus ethe arriving speed of the sound waves is increased when the sound source is approaching and the arriving speed of the sound waves is decreased when the sound source is receding. This interpretation also applies to light. Ken Seto Ken Seto
From: G. L. Bradford on 13 Jun 2010 13:54 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:TsadnUI17d2neYnRnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > 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 ==================== Even in these diagrams, the traveler is diagrammed 1-dimensionally as one and only one [1-dimensional] traveler, the OBSERVED traveler. An UNOBSERVED real traveler would be perceived to have far out distanced the speed of light, and therefore his own OBSERVED virtual self (including virtual clock), in going away from the observer. In oncoming to the observer, the UNOBSERVED real traveler thus comes from apparently far beyond and behind in space (all light being propagated and transmitted at speed c), though always coming from far ahead in time (the virtual being a photo-e, thus a history), the real traveler eventually catching up to the light born virtual in space, and the light born virtual traveler eventually catching up to the real in time, only at the finish lines of [all] arrivals (every finish line of every arrival anywhere). I understand the 1-dimensionality of the diagramming only too well. In oncoming to the observer, the real traveler should be diagrammed [coming from] the future cone to the observer, exactly mirroring the virtual traveler diagrammed to be coming from the past cone, the points of two arrows pointed into the common center of the observer at 0-point. In going away from the observer, two arrows both pointing away and leaving away from the same 0-point into the future and past cones. 1-dimensional idiots. GLB ===================
From: PD on 13 Jun 2010 17:37 On Jun 13, 9:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 12, 9:14 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Not at the time the rivet head hits the wall, they don't. > > No, Ken, they do not. > > > It is true that the bug will be dead in both frames. But it isn't true > > that this will be the case before the rivet head hits the wall in both > > frames. > > 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 *physical* sequence of events depends on the frame. You are under the mistaken impression that the physical sequence of events cannot be frame-dependent. This is incorrect. > 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 > > > > > The rest of your made-up nonsense is ignored. > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
From: Michael Moroney on 13 Jun 2010 21:47
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jun 12, 3:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >). >> >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.... Again, look up what "event" means when discussing SR. The bug being dead is a state of being, as it is not an event. An event happens at one specific time (and place). The bug being dead is over a range of time. The bug is dead 1 second after the rivet shaft squishes it, it's still dead 1 minute after, 1 century later and on to the heat death of the universe. You are thinking of the event of the bug being squished. That happens at a single, exact time (and place), > it happened when the rivet head hits >the wall of the hole. This is an event, since it happens at a single, exact time (and place), > The bug is still alive is an event..... No, it is a state of being. It exists over a range of time starting from whenever it hatched from an egg until the time the rivet squishes it. >it >happened when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. No, the bug being alive "happened", or rather started happening when it hatched. Its being alive ended when the rivet squished it. Now, there is the event of the head of the rivet hitting the wall. That is an event since it happens at a particular time and place. > 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. No, SR says nothing of the sort. Are you going to post misinformation and misunderstanding for another 15 years because you don't understand how SR uses the word "event" ? >> >> >> 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. I'm still waiting for you to comment on which star went nova first, and why. |