Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Jun 2010 12:23 On 6/28/10 8:33 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Jun 27, 10:45 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/27/10 9:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> On Jun 26, 5:39 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Assuming that both stars stars go nova simultaneously is MEANINGLESS. >> >>> Hey idot without this stipulation then the gedanken is meaningless. >> >>> Ken Seto >> >> Ken, this is your chance to learn something in on USENET! >> >> Relativity of simultaneity >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity >> >> "In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that >> simultaneity�whether two events occur at the same time�is not absolute, >> but depends on the observer's reference frame. According to the special >> theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense >> whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated >> in space". >> >> Two points Ken: >> >> o whether two events occur at the same time�is not absolute, >> but depends on the observer's reference frame >> >> o it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two >> events occur at the same time if those events are separated >> in space >> >> Die gedanken, to be useful, must take into account the >> relativistic physics, not the old Newtonian concepts. You >> cannot butcher the gedanken with Newtonian absolutes! > > Wormy RoS is a faulty concept. It violate the isotropy of the speed of > light. The constancy of the speed of light is a direct contributor to the relativity of simultaneity, Seto! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Jun 2010 12:26 On 6/28/10 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Jun 27, 10:54 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/27/10 9:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> >> >>> Sigh... no experiment supports physical or material length >>> contraction. >> >>> Ken Seto >> >> From the cosmic muon's perspective, the distance traveled >> to the earth's surface is foreshortened as predicted by >> relativity theory. > > No idiot.... from the cosmic muon's point of view the life time of the > earth muon is 2.2/gamma us. From the earth point of view the life time > of the cosmic muon is gamma*2.2 us. So far so good... But also from the cosmic muon's point of view, the distance traveled to the earth's surface is foreshortened as predicted by relativity theory.
From: Sam Wormley on 28 Jun 2010 12:31 On 6/28/10 8:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Jun 27, 10:56 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Remember, Ken, you only get one perspective. Relativity theory >> correctly predicts the outcome of a measurement or observation. >> One perspective Ken--No paradox. > Everybody must agrees that the bug dies when the tip of the rivet hits > the bug...this is not frame dependent. You have absolutely no understanding of relativity theory, Ken. Perspective is everything. What is measured IS observer dependent!
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Jun 2010 13:49 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jun 27, 11:16 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> A sees Star 1 go nova and 9 years later sees Star 2 go nova. >> >I assume that you stipulate that both stars stars go nova >> >simultaneously and what A see is due to its distances from the stars. >> >> I stated no such thing. I explicitly stated that there is a 9 year >> difference between the times A and B see the novae. >Then you gedanken is meaningless.... No, you impose a stipulation that you, not I, state is part of the problem and you immediately see a problem with it. That should tell you that the problem is with your stipulation, not my original gedanken. >A and B sees the stars go nova at >different times because they are at different distances from the >stars. Exactly. The order of events depends on the frame, when and where the observer is in spacetime. The bug/rivet is rather more complicated since it involves relativistic motion, but just like the observers A and B in my simple gedanken see the events in different order, the two observers in the bug/rivet problem see the two events (rivet hitting wall & bug squashed) in different order.
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Jun 2010 17:29
Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)gmail.com> writes: >On 6/28/10 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> No idiot.... from the cosmic muon's point of view the life time of the >> earth muon is 2.2/gamma us. From the earth point of view the life time >> of the cosmic muon is gamma*2.2 us. > So far so good... Not really. Notice he put a "/" instead of a "*" in the calculation of the lifetime of an earth muon. It's due to his mistaken view that if A sees B's clock running N times slow, B must see A's clock running N times fast. |