Some Contradictory Claims of SR.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ben6993 is a LIAR.
Next: Light wave is immaterial
From: kenseto on 9 Jun 2010 11:19 On Jun 9, 5:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message > > news:4c0f53b4$0$22940$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > > > Inertial wrote: > >> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:humico$6dk$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >>> kenseto wrote: > >>> [...] > > >>> What's this supposed to accomplish, Ken? > > >> To let us all know that after many years (if not decade) he still doesn't > >> understand SR or what it predicts. I guess his argument then is > >> (speaking as Ken): " if even *I* cannot understand SR, then it must be > >> wrong .. as clearly it could NOT be *MY* failing". > > > But you are saying that you accept the fact that if a spaceship leaves the > > earth at close to light speed, clocks on Earth really slow down ? > > I didn't say anything of the sort .. where do you see me saying that above? > > In SR (and LET) nothing intrinsic changes in the clock rate on earth. > > In LET, something happens to the clocks in the spaceship (but not in SR) > compared to when they were at rest on the earth. Then how come the clock in the spaceship shows less elapsed seconds when it returns to earth? > > However, in both LET and SR, observers at rest in the spaceship frame will > calculate/measure the clock rate on the earth to be slower. And observers > at rest in the earth frame will calculate/measure the clock rate of the > spaceship to be slower Hey idiot when comparing two clocks A and B the following possibilites exist: 1. A runs fast compared to B. 2. Then B runs slow compared to A. At no time that A sees B runs slow and B sees A runs slow....this bogus SR assertion is based on the bogus SR assumption that every SR observer assumes that exclusive properties of the preferred frame. Ken Seto
From: PD on 9 Jun 2010 12:34 On Jun 9, 9:15 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> 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. The "when the head of the rivet hits the wall of the hole" depends on the frame of reference. As I said, the sequence of events depends on the frame. In one frame, the bug dies before the head of the rivet strikes. In another frame, the bug dies after the head of the rivet strikes. You have taken this to mean that the bug is both dead and alive when the rivet strikes. This is, of course, a stupid conclusion to draw. > > > > > > 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. No, SR does not make the second statement, because in the pole frame, the doors do not close simultaneously AT ALL. So it would be an incorrect statement to say that the pole does not fit in the barn when the two doors close simultaneously. There is no contradiction. You are an idiot. > > > > > > > > 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. Yes, he can. Light speed is not closing speed. They are two completely different quantities. Light speed can be isotropic and closing speed be anisotropic, BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. Only you do not understand this, and get the two confused. This is because you are confused in general. > > 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: PD on 9 Jun 2010 12:38 On Jun 9, 2:36 am, 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, Does the above make any sense to you at all? > 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 with the twin puzzle. > > It is not because the physics conspire to hide the > preferred frame, that it is not there. Atoms and > molecules were hidden from us until before 100 years, > but that does not mean that their discovery and study is > not useful. The MEANING of the preferred frame is that that laws of physics are different in form than in any other frame. What form do these laws take in the preferred frame? > > Uwe Hayek. > > -- > 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: Hayek on 9 Jun 2010 12:59 PD wrote: > On Jun 9, 2:36 am, 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, > > Does the above make any sense to you at all? motion wrt to preferred frame -> real gamma increase. relative motion only -> only apparant effects, for the other observer. I cannot make it any simpler. > >> 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 with the twin puzzle. Not when you are in denial. >> It is not because the physics conspire to hide the >> preferred frame, that it is not there. Atoms and >> molecules were hidden from us until before 100 >> years, but that does not mean that their discovery >> and study is not useful. > > The MEANING of the preferred frame is that that laws > of physics are different in form than in any other > frame. What form do these laws take in the preferred > frame? To answer this question for instance : classical twin experiment : A stays on Earth, B speeds outbound, reverses direction, then returns. Let us do the experiment the other way around : the Earth moves at 0.4 c with respect to the universe, B moves outbound wrt the Earth, but stays immovable wrt to the universe, then reverses direction and starts at 0.8 c returning to the Earth. The outcome is the same, but the question is, did B's clock move slower than the Earth's on the outbound track or faster ? Uwe Hayek.
From: Hayek on 9 Jun 2010 13:48
kenseto wrote: > 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. Here I beg to differ, SR works ok, but only for round trips. And we cannot measure anything on one way trips. SR ians win ... for now. I asked to make a prediction on one way trips, if it would ever become measurable, but they started shouting, and none gave an answer. The \question was this : Classical twin experiment : A stays on Earth, B speeds outbound, reverses direction, then returns. Let us do the experiment the other way around : the Earth moves at 0.4 c with respect to the universe, B moves outbound wrt the Earth, but stays immovable wrt to the universe, then reverses direction and starts at 0.8 c returning to the Earth. The outcome is the same, but the question is, did B's clock move slower than the Earth's on the outbound track or faster ? > that's why SR is valid for accelerator desogn > applications....where the accelerated particles are in a higher state > of absolute motion. I am not sure it would make any difference. >> 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. You said here : the pole observer predicts : suppose he makes a dry run without door but just the light signals, like I said here below : then he concludes that the barn has shortened. Why do you say No..., while basically I say the same thing ? Uwe Hayek. >> 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. >> |