Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Sam Wormley on 29 Jun 2010 13:41 On 6/29/10 12:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > That's not mistaken view. It been confirmed by experiments and the > GPS. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS is 7 > us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effect on > the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast. > > Ken Seto Neither of your numbers is correct, Seto, as you MUST take the difference in gravitational potential into account. See Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html How many time must you be told that the relativistic affects on satellite clocks requires general relativity, not special relativity!
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 13:46 On Jun 29, 12:17 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 9:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 26, 10:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 26, 9:38 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Of course. But whether the head of the rivet has already hit the wall > > > > or has yet to hit the wall, which is an event that occurs in a > > > > *different location*, will depend on the reference frame, and two > > > > observers in those frames need not agree. Nor do they agree. > > > > Hey idiot you are putting up straw-men. Both frames agree that the bug > > > dies at the instant when the end of the rivet hits the bug. Thereore > > > your claim that from the hole point of view the bug is still alive due > > > to length contraction of the rivet is bogus. > > > I never said that the bug was alive when the end of the rivet hits the > > bug. I never said that. > > Yes both frames agree that the bug dies at the same instant when the > tip of the rivet hits it. But you also claimed that from the hole > point of view the tip of the rivet hits the bug at a different instant > of time than from > the rivet point of view. That is a contradiction. No, I did NOT say that. You seriously cannot read a sentence from beginning to end and understand it. It's no wonder you do not read, and it's no wonder you do not understand relativity. I claimed the bug dies when the tip of the rivet hits it, and that is true in both frames. However, in one frame the head of the rivet has already made contact with the wall, and in another frame the head of the rivet has not yet hit the wall. There is no contradiction in that. In reality, Ken, events that happen in two different locations (the tip of the rivet killing the bug, and the head of the rivet hitting the wall are two events that happen in different locations) have different sequences in different frames. There is no contradiction in that. > > Ken Seto > > > > > I said that in one frame the bug dies before the head of the rivet > > hits the wall, and in another frame the bug dies after the head of the > > rivet hits the wall. Those are two completely different things. > > You cannot read a single sentence from the capital letter at the > > beginning to the period at the end and achieve any understanding of > > what it said. You see? You did not read the paragraph above from beginning to end. It's no wonder you cannot follow relativity. Your ability to read and comprehend what you read is terrible. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > That is simply incorrect, Seto. You are making an assertion that is > > > > contrary to a model that agrees extraordinarily well with measurement. > > > > Assertion is not an argument, Ken. > > > > Stop making assertions that are not supported by experiment. > > > > Sigh... no experiment supports physical > > > That is incorrect, Ken, as I've told you repeatedly. There is ample > > experimental support for physical length contraction. > > > > or material length > > > contraction. > > > Physical and material are two different things. They are not > > synonymous in physics. > > They may be in YOUR mind, and you may be under the impression that the > > "public" thinks they are the same thing, but both are irrelevant. What > > matters is what physicists say "physical" means. > > > > 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 - > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Michael Moroney on 29 Jun 2010 14:22 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jun 28, 1:49 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(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. >Then your gedanken is meaningless. How could it be meaningless? It is an extremely simple arrangement of two stars and two observers. In fact, astronomers see such things all the time. When looking at galaxies billions of light-years away they see them as they were shortly after they formed, not what they look like "now" (billions of years old). Similarly, any creatures there would see the Milky Way shortly after being formed, they won't see what we see. >> >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. >No....not exactly....your gedanken is meaningless. It's not meaningless. It's just that you simply can't (won't) understand it. You need to listen to PD and Wormley. You need to open a book and actually learn SR. >>The bug/rivet is rather more complicated since >> it involves relativistic motion, >Hry idiot both the hole frame and the rivet frame must agree that But >from the the bug dies at the instant when the tip of the rivet hits >the bug. From the bug point of view that's not a problem. But from the >hole point of view SR claims that the tip of the rivet did not hit the >bug at the same instant as perceived by the rivet frame because of >physical length contraction. So that's the paradox. This is mostly gibberish. However, just like the star example, the order of events depend on the observers' reference frame and their position in spacetime. The two stars/two observers is pretty much the simplest example of this. Two observers disagree on the order of two events due only to their locations.
From: Michael Moroney on 29 Jun 2010 14:27 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jun 28, 5:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> Sam Wormley <sworml...(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. >That's not mistaken view. It been confirmed by experiments and the >GPS. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS is 7 >us/day running slow and from the GPS point of view the SR effect on >the ground clock is ~7us/day running fast. Your assertion the GPS sees the ground clock running fast doesn't make it true. Your claim "confirmed by experiments" is false. Also you have to do GR math, but go ahead, plug in the numbers in the GR formula to see how the GPS satellite sees the ground clock. See Ashby's paper which has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
From: Ann O'Nymous on 29 Jun 2010 15:38
References: <958cf824-148b4091-9603d97d9d83a5d7(a)d16g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> PD wrote: >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. OK, you are correct about the speed of light. Yet, what about a "maximally stiff" rivet where the speed of sound(?) through it equals the speed of light. As far as the bug is concerned, the shaft is 0.375 light-seconds long when the rivet head hits the wall. The tip keeps approaching since it takes time for that information to propagate. It takes 0.375 seconds to move to the tip which means the top approaches another 0.375 light-seconds before it stops. Therefore it's 0.75 light seconds long when it stops so the bug doesn't get squished. What's wrong with this? |