Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Darwin123 on 14 Jun 2010 12:24 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. From a legal point of view, both the rivet and the bug have an alibi. Because of the limit on the speed of light, neither bug nor rivet can do anything to change the events. Therefore, the order of events don't matter. The rivet had no way to know the bug was there, and the bug had no way to know that the rivet was coming. In other words: The order of events is not physically significant for two events separated by a space-like interval. Their is no causal link between the two events. Therefore, there is no real paradox. > > 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. From a legal point of view, both the barn and the pole have an alibi. Because of the limit on the speed of light, neither barn nor pole can do anything to change the events. Therefore, the order of events don't matter. The rivet had no way to know the bug was there, and the bug had no way to know that the rivet was coming. In other words: The order of events is not physically significant for two events separated by a space-like interval. Their is no causal link between the two events. Therefore, there is no real paradox. > > 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. From a legal point of view, both the front observer and the back observer on the train have an alibi. Because of the limit on the speed of light, neither front nor back can do anything to change the events. Therefore, the order of events don't matter. The front had no way to know immediately that the lightening hit the back was there, and the back had no way to know that the lightening hit the back. In other words: The order of events is not physically significant for two events separated by a space-like interval. There is no causal link between the two events. Therefore, there is no real paradox.
From: Androcles on 14 Jun 2010 13:21 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5f0bfd50-2238-43b1-975e-b13ee85dc0be(a)x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 8, 9:35 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. From a legal point of view, both the front observer and the back observer on the train have an alibi. Because of the limit on the speed of light, =============================================== What limit? =============================================== neither front nor back can do anything to change the events. Therefore, the order of events don't matter. The front had no way to know immediately that the lightening =============================================== Seto didn't mention any lightening. Lightning may lighten the clouds, or the clouds may be lightening at dawn. Not only are you so stupid as to invent non-existent speed limits, you write nonsensically too, drosen. ===============================================
From: kenseto on 15 Jun 2010 08:42 On Jun 14, 10:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. What you said is true only if length contraction is a geometric projection effect. If length contraction is a physcial effect as you asserted then the bug dies is not frame dependent. In IRT length there is no length cntraction. Instead the light path length of a moving meter stick is shorter or longer than the observer's meter stick. The light path length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be the physical length of the observer's meter stick. You can see that the IRT interpretation eliminates all the paradoxes of SR. IRT is availble in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: eric gisse on 15 Jun 2010 20:39 kenseto wrote: [....] > Frequency change is an effect of arriving speed of the sound or > light....not the wavelength change as current physics asserts. Did you know that you make diffraction gratings cry when you pretend they don't exist? [...]
From: Inertial on 15 Jun 2010 21:51
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:360aeea1-b703-442e-932f-f7354ce9a1b4(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 14, 10:05 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4f4ac334-f15a-4d92-8fbe-eec0ab20e611(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 13, 8:38 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:de63dbd6-f8d1-46d2-99f7-f89432fb47f6(a)k39g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> Nope .. the sound waves have the same speed regardless of the speed of >> >> the >> >> source. It is the rate at which successive wavefronts arrive is >> >> different. >> >> > Nope....the rate of succesive wavecrest arrive is different >> >> Yes .. you agree wit me .. good start .. shame you then end up getting >> everything else wrong >> >> > means the >> > arriving speed is different.... >> >> Wrong. They arrive at the same speed .. just at a different arrival rate > > No they dont arrive at the same speed ....the wavelength remains the > same but the speed of arrival of waves is different. Wrong .. not with a moving source. Only with a moving observer. Get it right [snip more nonsense from Ken who cannot understand even basic physics .. let alone have ANY chance with SR] |