Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: PD on 17 Jun 2010 12:55 On Jun 15, 7:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. No, Ken, that is not right. Physical effects can also be frame dependent. I don't know where you ever got the completely stupid idea that physical effects are frame independent and the only frame dependent effects are geometric effects. That is just plain wrong -- and boneheaded. > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
From: harald on 17 Jun 2010 15:21 On Jun 17, 6:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 7:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > No, Ken, that is not right. Physical effects can also be frame > dependent. > > I don't know where you ever got the completely stupid idea that > physical effects are frame independent and the only frame dependent > effects are geometric effects. > > That is just plain wrong -- and boneheaded. It's sometimes just a matter of meaning of words, and if you read carefully, you will see that Ken wrote something else than what you think he wrote, just as he ignored what you wrote. Perhaps he got his idea from here: "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion." [..] Harald
From: kenseto on 21 Jun 2010 13:43 On Jun 17, 12:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 7:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > No, Ken, that is not right. Physical effects can also be frame > dependent. > > I don't know where you ever got the completely stupid idea that > physical effects are frame independent and the only frame dependent > effects are geometric effects. > > That is just plain wrong -- and boneheaded. It is you who is boneheaded. geometric projection effect can be observer dependent....I look at you from s distance to be shorter....how shorter you are dependent on how far away from you. OTOH, the intrinsic length of the rivet or the hole remains constant....that means that the bug will die from both perspective, not observer dependent as you claimed. Ken Seto > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: PD on 21 Jun 2010 17:58 On Jun 13, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. Of course you can. One is the perspective in one frame, the other is the perspective in the other frame. At the same time. >The only way to resolve this is that length contraction is not > physical or > material. Physical does not mean material. We've been through this. >...mainstream physicists resolve this by claiming that length > contraction is a gemetric projection effect....not physical or > material as you claimed. I did not claim physical meant material. You did. It is a nonmaterial, physical effect. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > Ken Seto- 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: PD on 21 Jun 2010 17:59
On Jun 21, 12:43 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 12:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 15, 7:42 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No, Ken, that is not right. Physical effects can also be frame > > dependent. > > > I don't know where you ever got the completely stupid idea that > > physical effects are frame independent and the only frame dependent > > effects are geometric effects. > > > That is just plain wrong -- and boneheaded. > > It is you who is boneheaded. geometric projection effect can be > observer dependent. So can a physical effect be frame dependent. >...I look at you from s distance to be > shorter....how shorter you are dependent on how far away from you. > OTOH, the intrinsic length of the rivet or the hole remains > constant....that means that the bug will die from both perspective, > not observer dependent as you claimed. > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |