Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 26 Jun 2010 10:20 On Jun 25, 5:02 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. 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? It is obvious that the bug cannot be alive and dead at the same instant when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. This means that one of these predictions is only apparent. It comes down to this: 1. Length contraction in SR is not physically or materially real. It is a geometric projection effect much like I see you to be shorter from a distance or a mvoing meter stick is perceived to be shorter as you rotate it. 2. This means that there is no physical or material contraction and thus both the hole frame and the rivet frame agree that the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 26 Jun 2010 10:29 On Jun 25, 10:29 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:0c62b8a3-0939-4ba1-b2d8-c4cf9ebba74f(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:40 pm, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > >>news:1d4da9f5-45bf-4840-8098-e746d4d98a13(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com.... > >> On Jun 22, 11:15 pm, "Peter Webb" > > >> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >> > > It is a real physical contraction of spatial length that is described > >> > > by > >> > > a > >> > > geometric projection. > > >> > If it is real physical then why do you have to invent the term > >> > geometrical projection??? > > >> > ________________________________ > >> > He is not inventing a term. It is a standard term. And similar concepts > >> > are > >> > used in Newtonian mechanics. For example, people talk about the > >> > "height" > >> > of > >> > a ladders. But their height is not fixed; it is not an invariant. What > >> > is > >> > fixed (with your basic ladder) is its length. Its height is determined > >> > by > >> > a > >> > geometric projection of it length on to the vertical axis. Do you > >> > understand > >> > this? If you do, you also understand the role of length in SR; there is > >> > an > >> > invariant which corresponds to "length" in ladder and a term which > >> > depends > >> > upon the geometry which corresponds to "height" in ladders. If you > >> > don't, > >> > maybe you should try measuring the height of different ladders as you > >> > change > >> > their angle with the ground. > > >> So geometric projection is not physical....then why do you claim that > >> length contraction in SR is physical?? > > >> _____________________________ > >> No, that doesn't follow. Geometric projections can and do measure > >> physical > >> parameters. The "height" of a ladder is a geometric projection of its > >> length > >> onto a vertical line. It is not an invariant, as it depends upon the > >> angle > >> of the ladder to the ground. But it certainly is a measurable, physical > >> characteristic of the ladder; it tells you the height of one end of the > >> ladder above the ground. > > > Sigh...but geometric projection contraction cannot keep the bug to > > remain alive just before the head of the rivet hit the hole of the > > wall if length contraction in SR is physically or materially real. > > Differences in clock sync and simultaneity can No it can't. The bug dies in both frames before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. The hole clock and the rivet clock are running at different rates and thus show the event happened at different times. Relativty of simultaneity is a bogus concept. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 26 Jun 2010 10:34 On Jun 26, 9:20 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 5:02 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. 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? > > It is obvious that the bug cannot be alive and dead at the same > instant when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. It is not obvious at all. The head of the rivet hitting the wall and the tip of the rivet hitting the bug are events that happen in two different places. Which event comes first in two different places depends on the reference frame. I know you THINK it is "obvious" that this cannot be. But what you THINK is obvious is shown to be simply wrong in experiment. Thus what you THINK is obviously true is simply false, and you need to stop hanging on those things you think are "obvious". > This > means that one of these predictions is only apparent. It comes down to > this: > 1. Length contraction in SR is not physically or materially real. It > is a geometric projection effect much like I see you to be shorter > from a distance or a mvoing meter stick is perceived to be shorter as > you rotate it. > 2. This means that there is no physical or material contraction and > thus both the hole frame and the rivet frame agree that the bug dies > before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 26 Jun 2010 10:38 On Jun 25, 10:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 8:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 12:31 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: > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 8:04 am, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > No you can't....they must agree whether the bug is already dead or > > > > > > > > still alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > > > > > > > No, they don't "must" agree. They don't. I don't know where you got > > > > > > > the impression they do. > > > > > > > Yes they have to agree...just as that they have to agree that the > > > > > > speed of light is a constant ratio. > > > > > > No, they do not. Different frames have different accounts for events > > > > > transpiring. Sorry, Ken, this is just a fact of life. > > > > > The fact of life is this clocks in relative motion are running at > > > > different rates and thus the different perspectives are not real when > > > > it is corrected for the different rates of the clocks. > > > > > > > The bug die or alive at a certain > > > > > > instant of time is not frame dependent. > > > > > > Yes, it is, Ken. Your assertion is not an argument. > > > > > No it is not ....your assertion is not a valid arguement. > > > > Ken, no one is ever going to get anywhere with you pushing assertions > > > against your assertions. > > > Hey idiot the bug dies requires that the rivet squish it to > > death. > > Yes. > > >...both frames must agree that it occurs at the same instant of > > time. > > No. There is no need for both frames to agree that the rivet squish it > to death at the same time. Sure there is a need. The bug dies at the instant when the end of the rivet hits it. Both frames must agree to that. The hole clock and the rivet clock show a different time for this event to happen...but that's because the two clocks are ticking at different rates. > In one frame, the rivet squishes it to death BEFORE the rivet head > hits the wall. In another frame, the rivet squishes it to death AFTER > the rivet head hits the wall. There is no physical problem with this > at all. No....length contraction is SR is not real the bug dies in both frames before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. Ken Seto > > >...and this is not frame dependent. > > Sorry, but yes it is. > > > If length contraction is really physical or material the bug is still > > alive when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole. > > Physical does not mean material. I've told you this dozens of times, > and pointed out to you the dictionary that proves you wrong. > > > > > If length > > contraction is only a geometric projection effect (not a physical or > > material effect)then the bug is dead from both frames point of view. > > In other words, you can't have it both ways....that the bug is dead > > and alive at the same instant of time. > > > Ken Seto > > > > The fact is, you make assertions that are contradicted by experiment. > > > You are ignorant of the experiments, so it is natural that you would > > > make statements out of ignorance. > > > > No one owes you a convincing argument. > > > > If you are wrong, someone may be kind enough to point out that you are > > > wrong. Someone even kinder will give you pointers to look things up so > > > that you can discover for yourself why you are wrong. It is then up to > > > YOU to correct your error. > > > > If you do not wish to correct your error, you will continue making the > > > same error over and over, for -- oh -- fifteen years or more. This is > > > nobody's problem but yours, Ken. > > > > If you whine and complain that no one has convinced you that you are > > > wrong, then this speaks to your sanity and your emotional fragility, > > > and this is on top of your physics errors. > > > > > > > The clock at the hole frame > > > > > > can read a different time thaan the clock at the rivet frame for when > > > > > > the bug dies.... but that's because the two clocks are running at > > > > > > different rates.....not because the bug die at different times. > > > > > > > > > In other words, is length contraction physical (material) or it is > > > > > > > > merely a geometric projection. > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > Your assertion is not a valid arguement. > > > > > > > > Nor is yours. I showed you definitions in the dictionary that disagree > > > > > > > with you. You are flat wrong, but are incapable of admitting it, even > > > > > > > when confronted with the dictionary. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > No, Ken, I showed YOU in the dictionary where the meaning is broader > > > than material. > > > It is you that cannot read, even when it is placed directly under your > > > nose. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > Your > > > > > > example that a field is physical is also material related....a field > > > > > > is stress in a medium occupying space. > > > > > > Not to a physicist, Ken. > > > > > Physicists don't care what YOU think the term should mean. > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > >...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. > > > > > > > > > Inventing new meaning for physical is not a valid arguement. > > > > > > > > It is not a new meaning. YOUR meaning is not the standard one.. YOUR > > > > > > > meaning is the oddball one. > > > > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more »
From: kenseto on 26 Jun 2010 10:43
On Jun 25, 5:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. There is no experiment confirming that length contraction is physically or materially real. So your assertion is without merit. Ken Seto > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |