Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: Sam Wormley on 30 Jun 2010 13:17 On 6/30/10 9:08 AM, kenseto wrote: > 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. Seto, why are you making up this "SR effect"? The correct tool for the time dilation experienced by satellite clocks is general relativity. I implore you to read, "Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks" by Ashby. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
From: Michael Moroney on 30 Jun 2010 15:21 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jun 29, 2:22 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> >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. So, if a second observer is closer to B than A in this gedanken, then the second observer will see B's light first? Agreed? Therefore, the two observers will disagree whether A or B happened first. One saw A happen first, the other saw B happen first. Agreed? > BTW PD and wormy are idiots. Why not disprove their claims rather than attacking them? Because you can't, right? >> 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. Two events. The rivet head hitting the wall is an event. You are correct in that both frames agree that the bug dies when the rivet head strikes it. The question isn't that, but whether that takes place before or after the second event, which is the rivet head hitting the wall. If this will help you understand that there are two events, add a second bug, on the wall at the edge of the hole. The shaft misses it, the head of the rivet squishes it. Which bug dies first? > 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. So you have no math to support your claims. You're simply betting on one of them, apparently as a hunch. That's not how science works.
From: Michael Moroney on 30 Jun 2010 16:02 kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >On Jun 29, 2:27 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> writes: >> >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. >Hey idiot it is not an assertion....they use the SR eqations to >calculate the SR effect and use the gravitational potential effect >equation to calculate the gravitational effect. The combination of >these two effect is the GR effect. Yes it is an assertion. You assert that SR equations calculate that from the satellite point of view, the SR effect on the ground clock is ~7us/day running *fast*. SR does no such thing, if you do the math you'll see the SR effect will have the satellite clock seeing the ground clock as running *slow*. Of course, as Sam Wormley will point out, you have to use GR because of the gravitational effect. I pointed out in the past the motion part of GR means the ground clock is slowed by ~7 uS/day as far as the satellite clock is concerned, and the ground clock is slowed by another ~45uS/day due to gravitational effects adding to ~52 uS/day running slow but Wormley doesn't like me doing that. (I'm ignoring second order effects and assuming the eccentricity of the orbit is 0)
From: Sam Wormley on 30 Jun 2010 17:08 On 6/30/10 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot it is not an assertion....they use the SR eqations to > calculate the SR effect and use the gravitational potential effect > equation to calculate the gravitational effect. The combination of > these two effect is the GR effect. > > Ken Seto Seto, why are you making up this "SR effect"? The correct tool for the time dilation experienced by satellite clocks is general relativity. I implore you to read, "Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks" by Ashby. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
From: kenseto on 1 Jul 2010 21:25
On Jun 30, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 29, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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.. > > > Sure there is contradiction as follows: > > 1. You agree that the bug dies in both frames at the same instant of > > time when the tip of the rivet hits it. > > 2. You made the assertion that the bug dies beforew the head of the > > rivet hit the wall of the hole and then made the contradictory > > assertion that the bug dies after the head of the rivet hits the wall > > of the hole....these are two different instants of time. > > No, they are not. You have this mistaken notion that "an instant of > time" has a common meaning for all spatially separate events, > regardless of reference frame. This is- Hide quoted text - Hey idiot both frame must agree that the bug die at the instant when the tip of the rivet hits it. But SR predicts that it dies at two different instants of time dues to length contraction and that's a contradiction....the way to resolve this contradiction is that length conraction is an apparent or geometric projection effect.....not a physical/material effect as you asserted. You attempt to have it both way by insisting that length contraction in SR is physical but not material is laughablely stupid. Ken Seto > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » |