Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: eric gisse on 9 Jun 2010 06:17 Hayek wrote: > Inertial wrote: >> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:humico$6dk$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> kenseto wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> What's this supposed to accomplish, Ken? >> >> To let us all know that after many years (if not decade) he still >> doesn't understand SR or what it predicts. I guess his argument then is >> (speaking as Ken): " if even *I* cannot understand SR, then it must be >> wrong .. as clearly it could NOT be *MY* failing". > > But you are saying that you accept the fact that if a > spaceship leaves the earth at close to light speed, > clocks on Earth really slow down ? > > Uwe Hayek. > If you do not understand by now, you never will. Find a new hobby.
From: eric gisse on 9 Jun 2010 06:18 Inertial wrote: > "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:humico$6dk$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> kenseto wrote: >> [...] >> >> What's this supposed to accomplish, Ken? > > To let us all know that after many years (if not decade) he still doesn't > understand SR or what it predicts. I guess his argument then is (speaking > as Ken): " if even *I* cannot understand SR, then it must be wrong .. as > clearly it could NOT be *MY* failing". Ken's been doing it for 15 years.
From: harald on 9 Jun 2010 07:01 On Jun 9, 11:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message > > news:4c0f53b4$0$22940$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > > > Inertial wrote: > >> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:humico$6dk$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >>> kenseto wrote: > >>> [...] > > >>> What's this supposed to accomplish, Ken? > > >> To let us all know that after many years (if not decade) he still doesn't > >> understand SR or what it predicts. I guess his argument then is > >> (speaking as Ken): " if even *I* cannot understand SR, then it must be > >> wrong .. as clearly it could NOT be *MY* failing". > > > But you are saying that you accept the fact that if a spaceship leaves the > > earth at close to light speed, clocks on Earth really slow down ? > > I didn't say anything of the sort .. where do you see me saying that above? > > In SR (and LET) nothing intrinsic changes in the clock rate on earth. > > In LET, something happens to the clocks in the spaceship (but not in SR) > compared to when they were at rest on the earth. Do you call such descriptions as "the moving clock goes more slowly than when it was in rest", "LET" or "SR"? Also, you talk about clocks that underwent a change in their state of motion; as already discussed by Einstein, this can be done more than once for a direct (local) comparison. How can clocks that at first were in tune with other clocks, turn out to "be slow" compared with those other clocks so that they "lag behind", if *nothing happens* to any of the clocks? SR does not contain such self-defeating claims. Harald > However, in both LET and SR, observers at rest in the spaceship frame will > calculate/measure the clock rate on the earth to be slower. And observers > at rest in the earth frame will calculate/measure the clock rate of the > spaceship to be slower
From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 08:05 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:0d6efbd2-a7bb-446c-8fb5-f295c82718a4(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 9, 11:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >> >> news:4c0f53b4$0$22940$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >> >> > Inertial wrote: >> >> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>news:humico$6dk$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >>> kenseto wrote: >> >>> [...] >> >> >>> What's this supposed to accomplish, Ken? >> >> >> To let us all know that after many years (if not decade) he still >> >> doesn't >> >> understand SR or what it predicts. I guess his argument then is >> >> (speaking as Ken): " if even *I* cannot understand SR, then it must be >> >> wrong .. as clearly it could NOT be *MY* failing". >> >> > But you are saying that you accept the fact that if a spaceship leaves >> > the >> > earth at close to light speed, clocks on Earth really slow down ? >> >> I didn't say anything of the sort .. where do you see me saying that >> above? >> >> In SR (and LET) nothing intrinsic changes in the clock rate on earth. >> >> In LET, something happens to the clocks in the spaceship (but not in SR) >> compared to when they were at rest on the earth. > > Do you call such descriptions as "the moving clock goes more slowly > than when it was in rest", "LET" or "SR"? LET. SR does not say that .. Sr says there is no intrinsic change to the clock itself .. it continues to keep correct time in its rest frame In LET, an (absolutely) moving clock does not keep correct (absolute) time > Also, you talk about clocks that underwent a change in their state of > motion; In LET .. not in SR. > as already discussed by Einstein, this can be done more than > once for a direct (local) comparison. How can clocks that at first > were in tune with other clocks, turn out to "be slow" compared with > those other clocks so that they "lag behind", if *nothing happens* to > any of the clocks? Nothing does happen to them. The difference is in the frames of reference in which the clock is at rest. You question is like asking what happens to a given wave to give it a different frequency when a relatively moving observer measures it. It has a different frequency in each frame of reference .. so how is that possible is nothing happens to the wave? > SR does not contain such self-defeating claims. I'm not sure .. are you agreeing with me or not? I'm not making any claims that are self-defeating about SR (nor does it make any such claims about itself). > Harald > >> However, in both LET and SR, observers at rest in the spaceship frame >> will >> calculate/measure the clock rate on the earth to be slower. And >> observers >> at rest in the earth frame will calculate/measure the clock rate of the >> spaceship to be slower >
From: Surfer on 9 Jun 2010 08:14
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:36:28 +0200, Hayek <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >PD wrote: >> On Jun 8, 12:29 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >>> kenseto 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. >>>> 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. >>> At first, the scientists, and I presume Lorentz and >>> Fitzgerald, thought that the relativistic effects were >>> only apparent. Not real for both observers. Later, when >>> relativity became more entrenched, it was tought that >>> the effects were mutual, real for both observers. >>> >>> Suppose relativity works absolute after all, and that >>> the preferred frame is the average mass distribution of >>> the universe. >>> >>> The barn is at rest wrt this frame, so it does not have >>> any real length contraction. >> >> Hmmm... This seems to be a bit artificial to assume the barn is in the >> preferred frame. >> Suppose neither the barn nor the pole are at rest relative to the >> average mass distribution of the universe. Then how would you describe >> things? > >Then, part of the effects will be real, and part of them >apparent, but to both observers, things will look the >same as either of them would be in rest wrt to the >preferred frame. This is the argument of the relativists >against the preferred frame, but that does not mean it >is not there, it is useful for understanding how it all >works, and this absolute view also eliminates the twin >paradox. > That seems a very reasonable argument. |