Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Inertial on 9 Jun 2010 08:24 > 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. There is no paradox. You get the same unintuitive result in both LET and SR. An absolute / preferred frame or an aether doesn't change anything anything about it.
From: kenseto on 9 Jun 2010 10:15 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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 > on Seto's part and no one else's. Yes it is a contradiction. M' cannot measure the speed of light to be isotropic if he has different closing speeds wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train. Ken Seto > > OK, so there are no contradictions in SR after all. > All Seto has discovered is that his expectations about what should be > frame-independent are not correct, according to experiment, and that > he is confusing two completely different terms. > > PD
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jun 2010 10:43 On 6/9/10 9:15 AM, kenseto 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. One can't have both perspectives simultaneously, Ken. Pick one or the other and the physics correctly predicts the observation.
From: kenseto on 9 Jun 2010 10:58 On Jun 8, 1:29 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. The PoR of SR allows every SR observer to assume that he is in a preferred frame and that's why every SR observer ClAIMS THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTIES OF THE PREFERRED FRAME....namely that all the clocks moving wrt every SR observer are running slow and all the meter sticks moving wrt every Sr observer are contracted. These assumptions gives rise to the bogus concept of mutual time dilation. > > Suppose relativity works absolute after all, and that > the preferred frame is the average mass distribution of > the universe. SR has a limited domain of applicability....it works OK if the observed clock is in a higher state of absolute motion than the observer. that's why SR is valid for accelerator desogn applications....where the accelerated particles are in a higher state of absolute motion. > > The barn is at rest wrt this frame, so it does not have > any real length contraction. No the barn is not at rest in the preferred frame. The PoR allows the barn observer to assume that he is at rest in a preferred frame. In any case there is no physical length contraction in SR...that's why the SRians came up with the new interpretation that the geometric projection of a moving meter stick is foreshortened....much like I see you to be shorter from a distance. > > The pole flies by at high speed and has length > contraction. The barn puts light signals at both > doors when the tail of the pole passes at the back door > and when the front of the pole passes at the front door. No...the barn observer predicts that the doors can close simultaneously briefly with the pole inside the barn. The pole observer predicts that the doors cannot be closed simultaneously because the physical length of the pole is longer than the physical length of the barn. Ken Seto > > The observer at the barn sees the rear light first, and > some time later the front light, concludes the pole has > shrunk, because of relativistic effects. > > The back of the pole passes the rear door first, but > since the pole is traveling at close the speed of > light, the light from the back door has trouble catching > up with the pole. The front of the pole has reached the > front door, and the observer at the pole sees the front > light first, then the back light, thus concludes that > the barn must have shrunk. > > The effects seem to be mutual, but in case of the pole, > only apparent. > > Uwe Hayek. > > > > > 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. > > > Ken Seto > > -- > We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate > inversion : the stage where the government is free to do > anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by > permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of > human history. -- Ayn Rand > > I predict future happiness for Americans if they can > prevent the government from wasting the labors of the > people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- > Thomas Jefferson. > > Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of > ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue > is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: kenseto on 9 Jun 2010 11:02
On Jun 9, 8:24 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:36:28 +0200, Hayek <haye...(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. > > There is no paradox. You get the same unintuitive result in both LET and > SR. An absolute / preferred frame or an aether doesn't change anything > anything about it. Then why does every SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame?? - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |