Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 17:01 On Jun 25, 8:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 12:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:32 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. > > > > I am not favoring one perspective over the other. Both the hole > > > observer and the rivet observer agree that the bug dies at the same > > > instant of time. > > > No, they do not. This is an error on your part. > > Your crappy attempt to save face is an embarrassment. > > Assertion is not a valid arguement. I'm not MAKING an argument. Your assertion that the two observers must agree whether the bug dies before or after the rivet head strikes the wall is just that -- an assertion. An incorrect assertion. No amount of ARGUMENT will convince you that your assertion is incorrect. No amount of ARGUMENT will convince you that the assertions of relativity are the ones that are correct. The correctness of a theory does not arise from any ARGUMENT. What determines the correctness of relativity is its agreement with experiment. If you do not know about the experiments, or you are not convinced of the results, then you will never believe that relativity is correct. You are under the impression that scientific knowledge comes from logic and argument. It does not. Your assertions about what observers must agree on are simply wrong and contrary to experiment. The sequence of events is not frame- independent as you falsely assert. Experiment has shown this to be the case. If you ignore the experimental evidence to hold on to your false assertions, then you are simply out of touch with reality. >...when the rivet hit the bug the > bug dies both the hole observer and the rivet observer agree to that. > You are a bobeheaded physicist. <shrug> > > Ken Seto >
From: Ann O'Nymous on 25 Jun 2010 17:02 One thing I don't understand is this: Assume the hole is 1 light second long, and the rivet shaft (in the rest frame) is 0.75 light seconds long, and it's approaching the hole at a speed such that gamma=2. As far as the bug is concerned, when the rivet is approaching, its shaft is 0.375 light seconds long and it can't reach the bottom of the hole. Even when the shoulder of the rivet hits, the now stationary shaft is 0.75 light seconds long so it still doesn't reach the bottom of the hole, so the bug lives. But for someone riding on the rivet, the hole is only 0.5 light seconds deep so the bug gets squished. Could someone explain this apparent paradox? As far as I see, there are 4 viewpoints, not two. On the rivet tip, on the rivet shoulder, at the bottom of the hole (bug), at the top of the hole. Do all four of these viewpoints have four different views of the sequence of events? If so, what are they for this set of conditions?
From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 17:04 On Jun 25, 8:33 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2:03 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 9:22 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 22, 11:34 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:28 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > The normal usage of the word physical is material related. > > > > > No, it is not, Ken. That is YOUR usage. It is not the usage that > > > > physicists use. > > > > Yes it is....it is in the dictionary. You boneheaded physicists need > > > to change. > > > > Ken Seto > > > No, Ken. Physicists are the ones who *rightfully* own what "physical" > > means. Not ordinary folks, not a dictionary of common usage. If you as > > an ordinary folk think "physical" means "material", then physicists do > > NOT need to conform to your meaning of the word. This is not a battle > > of wills. > > The whole point of this discussion is: Is length contraction in SR a > real shortening of a physical or material meter stick You keep using "physical" and "material" as though they were synonyms. They are NOT. If you want to know what "physical" means, you ask a physicist. You do NOT hang on to what "the public" thinks. You let go of what "the public" thinks and you LEARN something from the physicist. If you do not want to learn anything from a physicist, including the meaning of the word "physical", then you're never going to get anyone to treat your ideas seriously. Ever. > or it is just a > gemetric projection effect (a rotational effect). You want to retain > the word physical to give the impression to the public that length > contraction in SR is physically or materially real and then you want > to use the term geometric projection when real physical or material > length contraction gives rise to paradoxes. You phyicists are a bunch > of crowns. > > Ken Seto > > > > >It is just an act of stupidity if you do not let doctors > > determine what "medicine" means, architects determine what > > "architecture" means, biologists determine what "biological life" > > means, and physicists determine what "physical" means. > > > This is not unfair. It is a fact of life. Suck it up. > > > No physicist would ever agree that "physical" means material and frame- > > dependent. This is YOUR meaning, and only yours. Stick to it, and you > > will NEVER get off square one with your ideas. > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 17:08 On Jun 25, 4:02 pm, Ann O'Nymous <nob...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > One thing I don't understand is this: Assume the hole is 1 light second > long, and the rivet shaft (in the rest frame) is 0.75 light seconds > long, and it's approaching the hole at a speed such that gamma=2. > > As far as the bug is concerned, when the rivet is approaching, its shaft > is 0.375 light seconds long and it can't reach the bottom of the hole. > Even when the shoulder of the rivet hits, the now stationary shaft is > 0.75 light seconds long so it still doesn't reach the bottom of the > hole, so the bug lives. No it doesn't. You are assuming the rivet is infinitely stiff and that when the shoulder of the rivet stops, then the tip of the rivet stops at the same time. But the tip of the rivet cannot possibly know about what's happened to the shoulder of the rivet until 0.375 seconds later at the *earliest*, because no signal can travel faster than c. One of the important outcomes of relativity is that there is no such thing as an infinitely stiff object, even in principle. To suppose it is to suppose the existence of an object that violates the laws of nature. That's like asking what the 2nd law of thermodynamics would predict if there were an engine that could violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. > But for someone riding on the rivet, the > hole is only 0.5 light seconds deep so the bug gets squished. > > Could someone explain this apparent paradox? > > As far as I see, there are 4 viewpoints, not two. On the rivet tip, on > the rivet shoulder, at the bottom of the hole (bug), at the top of the > hole. Do all four of these viewpoints have four different views of the > sequence of events? If so, what are they for this set of conditions?
From: PD on 25 Jun 2010 17:19
On Jun 25, 1:06 pm, "G. L. Bradford" <glbra...(a)insightbb.com> wrote: > The Constitution says we don't have to support your establishment of > religion. Sorry, but just because you do not understand it does not make it religion. The difference between science and religion is that the claims of science are supported by corroborated and documented *experimental evidence*. No one expects a science student to just accept things on faith. They are in fact expected and encouraged to research the documentation and to spot-check the results by direct confirmation in the lab, as an exercise in understanding how this corroboration works. But this involves WORK on the part of the student. It means that the interested person does have to invest in reading, in learning terminology and their precise meanings, in doing calculations, in learning how to make predictions with the theory and actually checking that those predictions work in the lab as advertised. It does NOT mean "bring it down to my level". > More than one of your claims of [theory] gets deep into looks of > imposing a religion in your classrooms at tax payer expense. Imposing, > programming, your cosmology and calling it science....just once in while > qualifying your imposition of religion upon your students as teaching > science based "theoretical origins." I've been a student of history for > fifty-five years. It is religion and you're a liar. An Orwellian liar. > > I'm not talking about "classical physics," hands on working physics, and > you damn well know it, Mr. Political Correctness. Quantum mechanics and relativistic physics can be tested in *teaching* laboratories at universities. You could see it work with your own eyes. If you take classes, you'd find that out. > > Over the next few years and decades we'll see who it is that knows more > about certain [crossing fields] 'big picture' PHYSICS. The logician and > historian or the physicist. You can't even tell that there are unobserved > objects, things, travelers, clocks, well forward in both SPACE and TIME of > the objects, things, travelers, and clocks you have under observation. You > don't even understand your own relativity to a star four light years distant > from Earth, a relativity of 2006 to 2010 or (-4) years to (0)-point. Where > in [relative time], where in a multiplicity of dimension regarding > destination point (observed 2006 or -4), departure point (observed 2010 or > 0-point), and light -- including c, any traveler would start out upon any > light-path-travel to an UNOBSERVED destination point not now at the > presently observed (-4) but at an unobservable 0-point (0=0). That HISTORY > from (-4) to (0) must be his highway within his travel TIME. All the > light-path-HISTORY between, and the TIME of travel, inclusively a package > deal! At the finish line, his destination point, once (-4), and his > departure point, once 0-point, have traded places and numbers. Thus what is > left is......... > > I'll stop here since it's always been too much for you. The bigger the > picture gets, the more -- and more varying -- dimensions that accumulate > into one, the more your so-called brain [flatly] stops cold at superficial > surface-horizons. Because you have a piece of paper, you rank yourself in > quality with such as Einstein and Hawking, Gibbon and Durant, ....., when > they were at their best. Don't be ridiculous. I don't rate myself at their caliber. But what you are asking about is NOT CUTTING EDGE. It is rather ordinary and mundane physics by now. You could get comparable training if you applied yourself and committed the resources and time. If you do not choose to do so, then do not expect more than a hobbyist-level grasp of the subject. Sorry. > You are not even 'fairly perceptive' concerning the > Universe at large. You are no floodlight. You are nothing more than a > narrowing minded denizen of Big Brother. You have no depth perception, no > all at once multi-dimensionality, to you. > > GLB > > ============================- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |