Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Inertial on 29 Jun 2010 19:40 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:84bb2984-336c-425d-95b8-ad60fc125ec7(a)5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > 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 .. its not .. just a different time coordinate in two different frames of reference. The bug still dies when the rivet hits it in ALL frames.
From: Inertial on 29 Jun 2010 19:58 "Ann O'Nymous" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:i0di3v$kpr$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > 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? The math. It will take longer than 0.375 light seconds for the information to arrive because the tip is moving in that frame .. the information has to 'chase' the tip.
From: kenseto on 30 Jun 2010 09:49 On Jun 28, 12:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> simultaneitywhether two events occur at the same timeis 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 timeis 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 No RoS is a bogus concept. It requires that M' moves wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train and thus violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 30 Jun 2010 10:06 On Jun 29, 2:22 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > kenseto <kens...(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. It is meaningless because all you are saying is that if you stand closer to a light source A than light source B then you will see A's light before B's light. BTW PD and wormy are idiots. > > >>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. Hey idiot there is no order of event in this case. There is only one event....the bug dies at the instant when the tip of the rivet hits it and both frame must agre to that. The paradox is: the rivet frame claims that the bug dies before the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole and the hole frame claims that the bug dies after the rivet head hits the wall of the hole. This means that one of these claim is false....my money is on the hole frame's claim because there is no phyiscal length contraction. Ken Seto - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 30 Jun 2010 10:08
On Jun 29, 1:41 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Hey idiot... my numbers on the SR effect from the ground clock point of view and from the GPS point of view are correct. > > http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5..... > > How many time must you be told that the relativistic affects on > satellite clocks requires general relativity, not special > relativity! |