Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Inertial on 13 Jun 2010 21:55 "Michael Moroney" <moroney(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message news:hv41mv$fvl$1(a)pcls6.std.com... > kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: [snip] >> 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. Well .. in this case Ken is at least partly correct .. different observers will have different opinions as to whether the bug is dead or alive at the time (in their frames) that the rivet hits the wall. ie for some the bug dies before, for othes after .. but the same events still happen.
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jun 2010 21:28 On 6/13/10 10:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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. v = √(C/ρ) where C is a coefficient of stiffness, the bulk modulus (or the modulus of bulk elasticity for gas mediums), ρ is the density. My dear Seto, you don't even understand high school pressure (sound) waves. The velocity of sound is not determined by source or observer. Do a bit of self-education man. It's got to be embarrassing to wrong in every posting you make. Speed of Sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound Same is true for electromagnetic propagation. The velocity is not determined by source or observer, but is a universal constant of c.
From: kenseto on 14 Jun 2010 08:59 On Jun 13, 5:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The bug live or die does not depend on the frame. It depends on whether the concept of length contraction is physical or merely a geometric projection effect. > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: kenseto on 14 Jun 2010 09:27 On Jun 13, 9:28Â pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/13/10 10:28 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > 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. > > Â Â Â v = â(C/Ï) > > Â Â where > > Â Â C is a coefficient of stiffness, the bulk modulus (or the modulus > Â Â of bulk elasticity for gas mediums), Ï is the density. > > Â Â My dear Seto, you don't even understand high school pressure > Â Â (sound) waves. The velocity of sound is not determined by source > Â Â or observer. Do a bit of self-education man. It's got to be > Â Â embarrassing to wrong in every posting you make. > > Â Â Speed of Sound > Â Â Â http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound > > Â Â Same is true for electromagnetic propagation. The velocity is > Â Â not determined by source or observer, but is a universal constant > Â Â of c. hey wormy....as you swim toward a source of water waves you encounter more waves arriving at you and the wavelength of the water wave is not changed. Therefore the arriving speed of the water waves is increased. This is the same for sound and light.....frequency increase means higher arriving speed.
From: PD on 14 Jun 2010 10:35
On Jun 14, 7:59 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 5:37 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > The bug live or die does not depend on the frame. Nor did I say it does. Whether the bug dies before or after the rivet head striking the wall is what depends on the frame. > It depends on > whether the concept of length contraction is physical or merely a > geometric projection effect. > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » |